Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: Iguana on November 23, 2011, 05:03:41 pm
-
Organic means nothing these days. Go for 100 percent grassfed meats or wild game meats, all raw, of course. Fish, fruit are fine, though less of a staple of the diet than meat, if possible. Keep nut consumption very low, though.
I eat as many unsoaked nuts as I like (one kind at a time, though). You just can't overeat them if they haven't been heated and if you don't process nor mix them. Vegetables are fine, I eat some almost everyday. Eggs and shellfish can be delicious. Consumption of too much muscle meat from domesticated animals, even 100% grass fed, has proved to be dangerous in the long run, inducing tumors. Hopefully, meat from wild animals having no access to garbage should be ok even consumed in large amount, as long as organs and marrow are eaten along. We should probably eat more small animals, birds and insects (bee brood, for example) as well.
-
Consumption of too much muscle meat from domesticated animals, even 100% grass fed, has proved to be dangerous in the long run, inducing tumors.
The only studies linking consumption of muscle-meats to tumours have involved consumption of cooked muscle-meats(as well as cooked animal foods in general). Studies have also shown that this carcinogenic effect is increased the more one cooks those meats. Raw meats are not carcinogenic in this way - unless one is thinking of grainfed meats, perhaps, given that they contain sizeable levels of AGEs, even when raw.
-
Tyler, I'm not referring to published studies but to the experience gained with several hundreds of people during 45 years of instinctive raw paleo nutrition in Switzerland and France.
-
Tyler, I'm not referring to published studies but to the experience gained with several hundreds of people during 45 years of instinctive raw paleo nutrition in Switzerland and France.
I'd love for you to share that experience, Iguana. I'm listening.
-
I hope GCB will answer as he's much more knowledgeable than me in biochemistry and has been closely involved in this experience.
-
I hope GCB will answer as he's much more knowledgeable than me in biochemistry and has been closely involved in this experience.
Until he does, if he does, please share with us what you know on the subject. This is obviously very important to most of us trying to follow a raw paleo diet in modern times and surroundings.
-
Does not the alliesthetic sense protect against overeating raw grassfed meat to the point of inducing tumors?
-
It seems overeating could happen just as with modern artificially selected fruits.
-
So it would not be a problem with meat from wild animals?
-
Yes, hopefully it wouldn't be a problem.
-
what does bee brood taste like?
-
..Consumption of too much muscle meat from domesticated animals, even 100% grass fed, has proved to be dangerous in the long run, inducing tumors.
Really? Even if it is consumed raw?
Do you know any cases beside GCB's wife?
And even in her case, we can't be sure. It is very like that she has eaten massive amounts of the domesticated sugar bombs from Orkos before her muscle meat diet experiment.
Löwenherz
-
You say "massive Amounts of the domesticated sugar bombs from Orkos" ... Could I ask you on which fact this statement is based ?
There has never been any problem of excess sugars with a correctly practiced instincto. All fruit sold by Orkos are grown in optimum conditions and chosen to be as close as possible to the original strains. It is impossible to have an adequate supply if you want to be limited to wild products only. But through a relearning of flavors, we adapt very well to the fruits and vegetables currently available
The best evidence that this equilibrium is fully achieved is given by a very sensitive criterion: the inflammatory tendency. By the way, this is a fundamental discovery that I was able to do in the instincto context. When following the changes in foodstuffs’ taste by stopping the intake as soon as a negative component appears (too acidic, too spicy, too sweet, too bitter, etc.), the inflammatory tendency disappears.
This can be easily seen when a fresh wound is healing. It occurs without redness, without any pain and with no irritation nor any swelling around the wound. If one forces the intake (by breaking the red lights in taste), we see these signs immediately reappearing – after only one meal with overload. If we then return to a precise control, the pain quickly disappears, followed by the disappearance of the redness and swelling (often in less than a day).
It is matter of "sugar bombs" only in nutritional conditions where one ignores the signals from the senses, or else in case of cooked or seasoned food which leads to systematic misleading of the senses. We can then easily cause sugar overloads, which explains the mistrust that has developed against them. Glucose is the number one fuel for all life forms. It is of course not the sugar itself that should be demonized, but rather the changes we apply to foodstuffs to make them taste better than plain: it is these processing that leads to a permanent overload.
-
As Iguana asked me, here is a brief summary of my observations and inferences.
I should point out first that the observations on which I rely on cover a long period, from 1964 to recent years. They deal with raw meat, especially beef, pork, mutton and game. I have seen that excessive consumption of protein over several years can cause keratinizations (dry skin, callus under the feet, hands calluses, cracked fingers, wrinkles, dandruff, brittle and overgrown nails and hair, thickening of warts, etc.), immune disorders or autoimmune disorders (eczema, rheumatism, arthritis, arthritis, etc..) and tumor growth.
The task was first to define the notion of "excessive consumption". Data from conventional nutrition science, which recommended a given amount of protein per day, does not account for individual differences or variations in requirements depending on the state of the body. The experiment was therefore based on sensory data: when consuming raw meat without any seasoning nor other deterioration, and as much as possible wild meat, there’s indeed a change in taste perception coupled with feelings of fullness that can indicate the need’s fulfillment.
Immune disorders are explained as follows: when there is digestive or metabolic overload, a proportion of the ingested proteins escape the enzymes responsible for degrading them, while they retain their antigenic structures – that is to say that the immune system recognizes them as foreign to the human body. If the situation repeats itself excessively, there may be sensitization (allergies), tolerance (paralysis of the immune system to certain types of molecules), or an autoimmune reaction (the immune system turning against the cells of the body, either that they display similar proteins or that foreign proteins are set on their membrane).
I can only recommend to people who experience systematic consumption of raw meat to remain very vigilant. Although initially everything seems to be fine, induced disorders may occur much later, and be fairly irreversible. I myself eat almost everyday an animal protein of various sources (meat, fish, shellfish, crab or eggs), but I stop as soon as it becomes less tasty or at the slightest feeling that I have eaten enough of it. So I’ve been able to put under control the disorders that had arisen at times when we experienced an excessive consumption of meat (mainly beef muscle) – whereas it went so far as to cause the death of my wife.
-
Wow, super thank you for sharing your insights!
-
Tyler, I'm not referring to published studies but to the experience gained with several hundreds of people during 45 years of instinctive raw paleo nutrition in Switzerland and France.
I think too much of ANYTHING, meaning more than our instincts tell us (whether we feel them or not) to eat would be dangerous.
-
Past 2 months my appetite for beef had markedly decreased. I'm more diverse into fish, squid and clams lately. It's some kind of cycle. And maybe less animal food. Instead of the old usual 0.6 kg a day, maybe 0.4 or less. It must be the durian though.
-
I think too much of ANYTHING, meaning more than our instincts tell us (whether we feel them or not) to eat would be dangerous.
I think that's obvious. The real challenge is to hear and listen to our instincts. In our modern world of broad choice, deception and temptation. It is very difficult to separate nurture based desires from natures instincts.
I found that if I only eat what appeals to me I tend to eat to much fruit and way to little meat. How do I know? I get sluggish, healing is retarded and my previous digestive issues re-emerge. If I restrict fruit to 1 or 2 a day and eat plenty of muscle meat, liver and marrow I feel best. Perhaps I'm doing what my instincts would have told me if I was capable of hearing their gentle voices amongst the screaming crouds of desires and temptation.
-
I would love to read GCB's book or even booklet that gives some practical perspective on what we can do nowadays to optimize our health by diet. I know there is a book on anopsology already (that I value highly by the way) but I would love to see more personal insights, stories, experiences, conlusions after living in instincto communities for that long.
-
I think that's obvious. The real challenge is to hear and listen to our instincts. In our modern world of broad choice, deception and temptation. It is very difficult to separate nurture based desires from natures instincts.
I found that if I only eat what appeals to me I tend to eat to much fruit and way to little meat. How do I know? I get sluggish, healing is retarded and my previous digestive issues re-emerge. If I restrict fruit to 1 or 2 a day and eat plenty of muscle meat, liver and marrow I feel best. Perhaps I'm doing what my instincts would have told me if I was capable of hearing their gentle voices amongst the screaming crouds of desires and temptation.
I know what you mean about fruit. I think it's because a lot of fruits are sweet and not plain, causing us to desire them.
-
So I’ve been able to put under control the disorders that had arisen at times when we experienced an excessive consumption of meat (mainly beef muscle) – whereas it went so far as to cause the death of my wife.
Thank you so much for posting here. Forgive me for repeating gossip, but I had heard online that your wife had been eating cookies quite regularly when she became ill. Is this true? Again, I apologize for repeating unsubstantiated gossip.
-
when I was at the castle each of my six visits, I witnessed instinctos eating large quantities of food, both fruit and meat. Rosedale is always warning against eating more than moderate amounts of protein at any given meal. One of his guidelines is eating a piece of animal the size of your palm. Any more and the protein isn't used for repair and maintenance but is turned into ( sorry I forget this detail) and causes rises in insulin and or blood sugar. Along with the notion that excess digested meat causes an immune response, I would also think that undigested meat entering the intestines plays havoc also, in terms of toxins from that substance entering the blood system. I know for myself that if I overeat, the next day, I'm sluggish, stiff and not as mentally alert. Rosedale is also noted for saying something unique,, that paleo man's diet wasn't created for long life, but to sustain life for only as long as he/she could reproduce and pass along learned info to children, like, food finding, protection from animals, etc... I've found with meat that if I pay attention quite closely that the stop is there as well as for fat. And sometimes I eat them separately simply to recheck more closely how much or what my instinct is telling me. This also goes for eating with spices or salt. When I mentioned to Rosedale that the Bear had had cancer, he wasn't surprised one bit and indicated more would follow due to his large meat meals.
-
In my short stint so far with raw paleo diet of almost 4 years, I observe that raw protein overdose is a problem as you mentioned. So the solution is to eat A LOT of raw fat with the raw protein always. It would seem most of us have this observation. Look at Lex Rooker's journal for ratios.
How much fat vs protein did you see the instinctos eating in the castle at that time?
Did the instinctos at that time know that you need to eat large quantities of raw fat?
-
when I was at the castle each of my six visits, I witnessed instinctos eating large quantities of food, both fruit and meat. Rosedale is always warning against eating more than moderate amounts of protein at any given meal. One of his guidelines is eating a piece of animal the size of your palm.
I appreciate the introduction of self-control into discussion of anopsology, but also the Raw Paleo Diet in general. When I first began experimenting with raw meat I was left to believe I could eat as much as I wanted, but this often lead to over-eating.
Although, I do have positive experiences with instinctive eating (being attracted to one food one day and then uninterested in the same food after fulfilling some deficiency), I feel that without some sort of rough guideline people can be left to imagine that raw, pre-frozen ground beef is the holy grail and concerns or bad reactions (not healing crises, mind you) should be ignored.
Thank you for sharing this comment. My experience with raw meat has been as described above and now I'm learning that I may not be able to handle as much raw meat as most others on this forum, to which I was completely ignorant of originally. Today, I experimented with wild goose and found myself only capable of eating just over my palm size before I became distracted and no longer interested in eating.
I'll continue to use this guide when I decide to incorporate raw meats back into my diet as a staple.
-
It was maybe the fourth or fifth time, and I will always remember my reaction of a woman eating off the little wooden cutting boards they used for meat, chunks of fat. I really only remember seeing this once. I thought then, Ok, the raw meat is one thing, but chunks of fat, how gross. It was some time ago that I was there, and I think it was my last time visiting before I ate raw meat. And that too I'll never forget. I probably ate two or three pounds,, I couldn't stop eating it. I was leaving the next day to return to the states, and I was so worried that I was going to be sick. Hadn't eaten meat for probably 15 years, ( sushi yes), and no problem at all. Except that my brain got fueled like I had filled it with racing fuel. Didn't get to sleep till 2 that morning. Truly convinced me of what I had been starving my body from not eating.
-
Today, wild animals eating 100% raw food are getting degenerative disease, so even in the unlikely resolution of finding an exact balance that was workable 100,000+ years ago does not necessarily carry the solution for this problem - as mentioned above in terms of how we can thrive the best today with a range of knowledge. Even if the solution very well might be 'less meat' or something it doesn't change the highly researched idea that (raw) diets that burn sugars predominately are more likely to develop degenerative problems or at the very least - not have as many mechanisms to cure them. Ignoring this and bringing the focus to 'less of this or that' or 'closer to wild sources' seems to be tackling minutia that people even eating standard fare do not always have problems with. It becomes absurd that that level of 'extreme' attention is needed to avoid problems that arn't even universal issues in non raw,non paleo diets that by definition have worse quality food likely in less natural portions. Its pretty obvious other factors contribute to degeneration and people can't wave a wand and say that X people are in ideal conditions to weigh which things are bad when for 1000's of years people did eat diets high in meat and fat (even domesticated) and very little carbohydrate and did not suffer degenerative disease.
-
It turns out its also inaccurate that all other species seek out or even eat mostly glucose based diets.
Other than outright easy examples, less meat in humans would still mean a huge portion of dietary fatty acids if one truly wanted to mimic the metabolized nutrition of animals like chimps. Even if chimps do represent the diet of a common ancestor that has relevance to modern humans, chimp digestion is so drastically different than ours that its accurate to say that they arn't even really eating glucose heavy diets. As hindgut fermenters, chimps and gorillas have a colon that comprises about 52 % of the total gut volume. It houses microbes that ferment fiber, converting it to fatty acids that supply up to 65% of the animal’s energy requirements. Human have a colon - in contrast - at 17 % of total gut volume. At most, microbial fermentation in the hindgut can provide about 10% of human energy requirements. that is more than 50% less fatty acid production from carbohydrate consumption to supply energy in humans. not even including the intake from outright fats or proteins consumed in the hundreds of things chimps eat.
A sugar based diet for humans however, doesn't add up with the real evidence of which things were actually sustainable in nature (particularly when having all or mostly raw examples) and which avoided all signs of degeneration. Even when we can point to people in nature eating a range of things some had more degeneration than others. The issues are even worse for modern people that have to reverse problems and to eliminate more wastes than traditional peoples. Its suspected based on evidence that other than meeting poor nutritional requirements for humans, high sugar diets are generally poor as a mechanism for buffering environmental factors today AND removing already preexisting toxins. This is not necessarily because sugars are 'bad' in nature but even this CAN be argued as even chimps develop both tooth decay AND gum disease and die usually sooner to experience other issues as perhaps 'our caveman' with his meat diet.
Even eating a variety of things or a certain kind of balance, which seems to be a modern 'common sense' thing doesn't seem to add up with the results people get eating closer to a meat/fat model in creating wellness. This along with actual anthropology does hint that this is a more natural approach, but it doesn't mean that those diets are entirely sustainable, don't carry their own problems, or result in the longest life. There should be the possibility of compromise on which diets are useful as a tool for which goal, specific healing, longevity etc..
---
baboons like chimps have been found prefering animal foods (and while not chimps) have been found feeding almost exclusively on grasshoppers for two months [paraphrase]
p 127
William J Hamilton in Food and Evolution
http://books.google.com/books?id=xHYxSHr86T8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=xHYxSHr86T8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)
The Director of the National Museum in Iceland has "definitely established" that during 600 years, 1200 to 1800 in Iceland, there were no dental cavities. The foods they ate were milk and milk products, mutton, beef and fish. [ Beef and milk products being a pre-modern but surely domesticated food.]
-
I for one, like KD's idea. That we humans are high fat, majority animal food eaters. At least, that's what feels right right now. Animal food is the most efficient and most expedient and consistent (in my tropics). Fruits are always changing, even if durian is great... you'd only get it in maybe 2 to 3 months of the year.
-
You say "massive Amounts of the domesticated sugar bombs from Orkos" ... Could I ask you on which fact this statement is based ?
Which fact do you mean?
Orkos makes money by selling extremely sugary domesticated fruits like watermelons, durians and bananas. Everybody can download their catalogue. Nevertheless 'Morn Thong' etc. are not remotely 'natural' or wild. It's just marketing for a very special target group.
There has never been any problem of excess sugars
There are indeed massive problems caused by excess sugars and you know it. Even the instincto children at Montramé got dental cavities, not to mention all the fungal infections, mental disorders etc.
with a correctly practiced instincto.
Very weak argument, not seldom used by dietary gurus and ex dietary gurus.
All fruit sold by Orkos are grown in optimum conditions
Unfortunately the quality of Orkos products went greatly downhill in the last 2-3 years and today most of them are not better than in organic groceries. Today I don't recommend Orkos anymore.
and chosen to be as close as possible to the original strains.
Sounds wonderful, nevertheless it's just sales marketing.
It is impossible to have an adequate supply if you want to be limited to wild products only.
And it's the same with animal products.
But through a relearning of flavors, we adapt very well to the fruits and vegetables currently available
I can not understand that you still believe this illusion. The sugar from domesticated fruits ALWAYS overrides everything else. And that's the main reason why an 'instincto diet' never works as long as you don't use your intellect to limit your instinctive overloads.
But, of course, we can't 'relearn the flavors' of grass-fed beef, right?
The best evidence that this equilibrium is fully achieved is given by a very sensitive criterion: the inflammatory tendency.
Absolutely not. The damage caused by sugary fruits cannot be measured directly by inflammatory signs. These signs are better to detect PUFA damages.
It is matter of "sugar bombs" only in nutritional conditions where one ignores the signals from the senses
You get no signals because your senses are massively misled by all domesticated foods. Therefore 'instinctive eating' can become quickly very dangerous, for example by overloading with PUFAs because the Orkos almonds taste so good. High sugar + high PUFA = serious trouble.
, or else in case of cooked or seasoned food which leads to systematic misleading of the senses.
Watermelons and durians are as misleading as baked potatoes.
We can then easily cause sugar overloads, which explains the mistrust that has developed against them.
Of course, but most cooking traditions like the traditional French cuisine are high in protective saturated fats. Whereas many 'instinctos' ended up with massive problems from high plant PUFA ingestion, because they erroneously thought that overbred almonds and other unnatural products could be a healthy staple food for them.
Your basic assumption that raw is generally better than cooked is unfortunately completely inapropriate. Cooking is always non-optimal, but a wrong raw diet can be much worse.
Glucose is the number one fuel for all life forms.
That was common sense in the sixties. It's wrong.
It is of course not the sugar itself that should be demonized, but rather the changes we apply to foodstuffs to make them taste better than plain: it is these processing that leads to a permanent overload.
The overbreeding processes are the root of the problems. It's naive to think that Orkos bananas and durians can't lead to an permanent overload.
I'm really not interested in any further discussions about this instincto idea. It would be a just waste of time.
GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.
I recommend the posts from user 'Alphagruis' in this forum to all readers who want to read more about 'instincto'.
Löwenherz
-
When I mentioned to Rosedale that the Bear had had cancer, he wasn't surprised one bit and indicated more would follow due to his large meat meals.
Good point.
Beside cancer, 'The Bear' also suffered from heart disease and other problems. Therefore I never understood why so many zero carbers called him their role model.
Löwenherz
-
Which fact do you mean?
Orkos makes money by selling extremely sugary domesticated fruits like watermelons, durians and bananas. Everybody can download their catalogue. Nevertheless 'Morn Thong' etc. are not remotely 'natural' or wild. It's just marketing for a very special target group.
There are indeed massive problems caused by excess sugars and you know it. Even the instincto children at Montramé got dental cavities, not to mention all the fungal infections, mental disorders etc.
Very weak argument, not seldom used by dietary gurus and ex dietary gurus.
Unfortunately the quality of Orkos products went greatly downhill in the last 2-3 years and today most of them are not better than in organic groceries. Today I don't recommend Orkos anymore.
Sounds wonderful, nevertheless it's just sales marketing.
And it's the same with animal products.
I can not understand that you still believe this illusion. The sugar from domesticated fruits ALWAYS overrides everything else. And that's the main reason why an 'instincto diet' never works as long as you don't use your intellect to limit your instinctive overloads.
But, of course, we can't 'relearn the flavors' of grass-fed beef, right?
Absolutely not. The damage caused by sugary fruits cannot be measured directly by inflammatory signs. These signs are better to detect PUFA damages.
You get no signals because your senses are massively misled by all domesticated foods. Therefore 'instinctive eating' can become quickly very dangerous, for example by overloading with PUFAs because the Orkos almonds taste so good. High sugar + high PUFA = serious trouble.
Watermelons and durians are as misleading as baked potatoes.
Of course, but most cooking traditions like the traditional French cuisine are high in protective saturated fats. Whereas many 'instinctos' ended up with massive problems from high plant PUFA ingestion, because they erroneously thought that overbred almonds and other unnatural products could be a healthy staple food for them.
Your basic assumption that raw is generally better than cooked is unfortunately completely inapropriate. Cooking is always non-optimal, but a wrong raw diet can be much worse.
That was common sense in the sixties. It's wrong.
The overbreeding processes are the root of the problems. It's naive to think that Orkos bananas and durians can't lead to an permanent overload.
I'm really not interested in any further discussions about this instincto idea. It would be a just waste of time.
GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.
I recommend the posts from user 'Alphagruis' in this forum to all readers who want to read more about 'instincto'.
Löwenherz
Hmmm, wasn't someone complaining about long posts not long ago? LOL
-
Hi guys,
If I switched my diet regime from 100% domesticated animal products to a split 0f 29/71 (domesticated/wild) while diminishing my total intake of animal product from 77% to 42% and upping my wild fruit intake from 5% to 48% how much can I expect my life to improve?
What if I went down to 0% for domesticated animal product except for the occasional goat heart?
-
Hi guys,
If I switched my diet regime from 100% domesticated animal products to a split 0f 29/71 (domesticated/wild) while diminishing my total intake of animal product from 77% to 42% and upping my wild fruit intake from 5% to 48% how much can I expect my life to improve?
What if I went down to 0% for domesticated animal product except for the occasional goat heart?
I hope you're not serious. That's over-thinking in my opinion. Good grief just eat the best you can, man! ;)
-
I do wish people wouldn't keep on subscribing to the any raw or cooked saturated fat is fine/All PUFAs are always bad, nonsense. It's utter b*ll. There are now multiple studies proving that cooked saturated fats are bad - granted, these studies usually blame all saturated fats in general when the real problem is that cooking foods high in saturated fats creates the highest amount of heat-created toxins. As for the PUFA issues, I have seen, time and again, people like Ray Peat using dodgy studies focusing on very highly processed PUFAs to wrongly pretend that all PUFAs, even in unprocessed, raw foods, are unhealthy as well - not logical at all.
-
I do wish people wouldn't keep on subscribing to the any raw or cooked saturated fat is fine/All PUFAs are always bad, nonsense. It's utter b*ll. There are now multiple studies proving that cooked saturated fats are bad - granted, these studies usually blame all saturated fats in general when the real problem is that cooking foods high in saturated fats creates the highest amount of heat-created toxins. As for the PUFA issues, I have seen, time and again, people like Ray Peat using dodgy studies focusing on very highly processed PUFAs to wrongly pretend that all PUFAs, even in unprocessed, raw foods, are unhealthy as well - not logical at all.
pufas may not always be harmful but it is very hard to get them in that state. pufas are destroyed even by the smallest amounts of heat and very quickly oxidise, become rancid. Most good sources of pufas are either heated, irradiated or rancid. So i try to avoid them.
-
Not really true, pufas are easily obtainable in raw form such as in raw seafood etc.. All one has to do is eat both saturated fats and PUFAs in their raw, unprocessed form, and then they are perfectly healthy. Simply put, processing/heating either saturated fats or pufas causes plenty of heat-created toxins to form etc., so neither are healthy in a processed or cooked form.
-
That's interesting. I thought cooking PUFAs created the most toxins of the fats? Do you have any links I could check out? I agree that heating any fats, particularly to high temps, even the SFAs, is probably not wise. It's interesting that traditional forms of cooking do not typically involve heating in fats. I saw one gourmet cooking TV host say that even traditional Chinese wok cooking used a little water instead of fat (oil). If true, I wonder if the ancient Chinese knew about some problem with cooking with fat? Granted, oils probably were not commonly available long ago, but they could have used lard or tallow.
-
Hmmm, wasn't someone complaining about long posts not long ago? LOL
Really??
My post was long but NOT complicated. :)
Löwenherz
-
Hi guys,
If I switched my diet regime from 100% domesticated animal products to a split 0f 29/71 (domesticated/wild) while diminishing my total intake of animal product from 77% to 42% and upping my wild fruit intake from 5% to 48% how much can I expect my life to improve?
What if I went down to 0% for domesticated animal product except for the occasional goat heart?
Ugh, chances are high that this diet could result in death in the very very long-run.
Löwenherz
-
Really??
My post was long but NOT complicated. :)
Löwenherz
Hmmm, maybe I'll steal that excuse. ;) ... Wait a minute, didn't you also complain about over-complicating things? ;D
-
I do wish people wouldn't keep on subscribing to the any raw or cooked saturated fat is fine/All PUFAs are always bad, nonsense. It's utter b*ll.
Nice words. Sorry Tyler, there is enough evidence that high fat high plant PUFA diets are extremely deleterious, raw AND cooked, whereas cooked is worse.
And if you don't want to believe it, TRY it and talk about your experience. Such a diet is extremely pro-inflammatory. Especially people with sensitive skin can see the results very quickly.
Are you obsessed with heat-created toxins?
Please don't exaggerate. Of course, cooking causes toxins. But the more important question is: How much of these toxins can be handled by the human body. The air you breathe in London or elsewhere also contains lots of toxins. My lively 90 year old grandmother has eaten pasteurized butter EVERY single day for at least (!) 50 years. Could you please explain me why she is still alive?
Löwenherz
-
Not really true, pufas are easily obtainable in raw form such as in raw seafood etc.. All one has to do is eat both saturated fats and PUFAs in their raw, unprocessed form, and then they are perfectly healthy.
Not really true for plant PUFAs if you eat them in high amounts.
Löwenherz
-
Nice words. Sorry Tyler, there is enough evidence that high fat high plant PUFA diets are extremely deleterious, raw AND cooked, whereas cooked is worse.
And if you don't want to believe it, TRY it and talk about your experience. Such a diet is extremely pro-inflammatory. Especially people with sensitive skin can see the results very quickly.
Are you obsessed with heat-created toxins?
Please don't exaggerate. Of course, cooking causes toxins. But the more important question is: How much of these toxins can be handled by the human body. The air you breathe in London or elsewhere also contains lots of toxins. My lively 90 year old grandmother has eaten pasteurized butter EVERY single day for at least (!) 50 years. Could you please explain me why she is still alive?
Löwenherz
You are a fool, you know. Any basic search online will show you that cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fats such as heated dairy products, have the highest load of heat-created toxins, much much higher than cooked plant foods, however PUFA-rich they might be:-
"Animal-derived foods that are high in fat and protein are
generally AGE-rich and prone to new AGE formation
during cooking. In contrast, carbohydrate-rich foods such
as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and milk contain rel-
atively few AGEs, even after cooking." taken from:-
PDF file:- "Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet"
As for being alive, many people are nowadays propped up by modern medicine, whereas they would all have died out decades before, if they hadn't had access to modern treatment re artificial hips and other nonsense. Means nothing, your 90-year-old quip.
As for my own experience, I did far better on a (largely-cooked) 100 percent vegan diet than I ever did on cooked-palaeo, for instance. In short, the whole PUFA issue is a waste of time.
-
As for my own experience, I did far better on a (largely-cooked) 100 percent vegan diet than I ever did on cooked-palaeo, for instance. In short, the whole PUFA issue is a waste of time.
That's interesting because I did way, way better on an animal product heavy cooked paleo diet than on a largely vegetarian diet. When I was on a largely vegetarian cooked diet I always lacked energy and was cold very fast. Also recovery and healing were seriously compromised. A cooked paleo diet gave me steady energy, good recovery from exercise and general well being. RPD off course does the same and more.
-
You are a fool, you know.
You spend all your time with dieting and your most deleterious health issue is right here.
-
Ugh, chances are high that this diet could result in death in the very very long-run.
Löwenherz
What can I do if I want to be able to climb small hills up to and beyond the age of 100 like TD will?
-
"Another confounding issue may be the formation of exogenous (outside the body) advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) and oxidation products generated during cooking, which it appears some of the studies have not controlled for. It has been suggested that, "given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-(saturated)fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGEs[46]" taken from, more or less :-
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long (http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long)
-
That's interesting because I did way, way better on an animal product heavy cooked paleo diet than on a largely vegetarian diet. When I was on a largely vegetarian cooked diet I always lacked energy and was cold very fast. Also recovery and healing were seriously compromised. A cooked paleo diet gave me steady energy, good recovery from exercise and general well being. RPD off course does the same and more.
Naturally. Everybody has different levels of illness/metabolic requirements etc. which means they will be more prone to some problems on one type of diet but less so on another type of diet.
-
You spend all your time with dieting and your most deleterious health issue is right here.
Don't be childish. Besides, I don't spend all my time with dieting. I have already recovered from all my past issues pre-RPD diet, so I really don't need to experiment or diet any more. My only interest, here, is to learn any new(or old) information that I might otherwise have missed and to help others avoid common mistakes with this diet(such as focusing too much on saturated fats, for example).
-
Cherimoya kid :
I don’t think my wife had eaten cake before her cancer appeared. She certainly would have told me. It will be one more rumor around instinctotherapy – of which these forums are riddled. But I had never heard of it. Anyway thank you for letting me know about it.
But its true that after she knew she had a cancer, she was quite distressed and she took Renutril in the last few weeks, but this is obviously not what induced her cancer a couple of years earlier. What made me sorry at the time, is that she refused to do the only thing that could have improved her state: stop eating large rations of beef daily.
General answer:
I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to regulation of food intake by the change in taste: beef, pork and mutton do not change flavor normally, and even less when eaten with fat. Even for an experienced instincto, it is extremely difficult to know where the instinctive stop is.
The phenomenon is explained by the fact that farmers have unconsciously selected these animals during thousands of years. It is always the animals providing the best tasting meat (and therefore a taste varying as little as possible to unpleasant) that have been promoted in reproduction. Simply because their meat seemed better: when you eat regularly a natural food, its taste becomes less pleasant. Farmers were certainly in a state of saturation and have been automatically searching for the animals they considered the most palatable. It can be seen today when comparing the drift of beef with bison, or sheep with mouflon, or pork with wild boar.
That's why I recommend to check regularly with wild meat (goose is ideal!) if there is no overload: otherwise we can not know. Eating a palm of meat, as recommended by Rosendale, does not guarantee a proper regulation: sometimes you have to remove the meat for a while to find a satisfactory balance, and on the contrary sometimes you need larger rations. We cannot predict it, simply because nobody knows anything about the actual needs and capacities of an organism at a given time.
As for the response to Löwenherz, it comes down very well in line:
GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.
So, please tell me actual cases (not rumors) on which you base this statement.
About glucose :
Glucose: as an energy source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose)
Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans. Use of glucose may be by either aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key source of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing approximately 3.75 kilocalories (16 kilojoules) of food energy per gram.[4] Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle (TCAC), glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy sources, mostly in the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the concentration of glucose in the blood. A high fasting blood sugar level is an indication of prediabetic and diabetic conditions.
Glucose is a primary source of energy for the brain, and hence its availability influences psychological processes. When glucose is low, psychological processes requiring mental effort (e.g., self-control, effortful decision-making) are impaired.[5][6][7][8]
-
I can not understand that you still believe this illusion. The sugar from domesticated fruits ALWAYS overrides everything else.
I totally disagree. I know very well when I’ve eaten too much sweet foods and I spontaneously look everywhere for other foods, such as vegetables, meat, fish, eggs. Aged meat, eggs, tuna, shellfish are extremely attractive to me, often more than fruits.
For example, last night I felt that I ate a bit too much fruits (much latter after my dinner including mutton). So today for lunch I was somewhat repealed by all sweet fruits and I ate a lot of scallops instead, plus two avocados.
And that's the main reason why an 'instincto diet' never works as long as you don't use your intellect to limit your instinctive overloads.
Of course you got to use your intellect too, if only to avoid as much as possible the most artificially selected fruits – and above all to understand the theory! Instinctive nutrition doesn’t mean that you have to behave idiotically ;) ! Quite on the opposite, you need all your intelligence to practice it correctly in this so called civilized world. Instinct and intelligence are not antagonists!
What should be avoided is the conventional dietary way of thinking, I mean: “I should eat this stuff because the experts say it brings essential nutrients and it’s good for health, or for this or that… and I should avoid this other stuff because experts say it contains antinutrients.” >D
-
I totally disagree. I know very well when I’ve eaten too much sweet foods and I spontaneously look everywhere for other foods, such as vegetables, meat, fish, eggs. Aged meat, eggs, tuna, shellfish are extremely attractive to me, often more than fruits.
I have this same experience as Iguana.
Such talk of anti-fruit makes me believe the fruits you get are far different from mine.
-
For example, last night I felt that I ate a bit too much fruits (much latter after my dinner including mutton). So today for lunch I was somewhat repealed by all sweet fruits and I ate a lot of scallops instead, plus two avocados.
Of course you got to use your intellect too, if only to avoid as much as possible the most artificially selected fruits – and above all to understand the theory! Instinctive nutrition doesn’t mean that you have to behave idiotically ;) ! Quite on the opposite, you need all your intelligence to practice it correctly in this so called civilized world. Instinct and intelligence are not antagonists!
Have you ever considered the fact that when you get 'tired' of a particular food you are simply listening to your internal hedonic system crying out for a different experience - something new, different, exciting to the pleasurable senses and absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a particular food is the most 'optimally nutrient dense'.
Its as though your survival systems have been kicked into high gear by the fact that their are a multitude of different options for nutrition. Your hedonic system gets an overload of sensory imputs from the selections and simply chooses that new food that gives it the most pleasure.
This is very similar to having sex with a very healthy breasted women for a few weeks at a time before tiring of her and subsequently going to a bar and picking out another woman for another few weeks or months (whichever time period is working at the moment). It will always appear that the new woman is more satisfying than the last but it doesn't mean that she offers any real advantage to your happiness - she is simply appealing to your deeply hardened survival mechanisms and seed spreading that is inherent in all of us.
Going from food to food instincto style could be no different than going from woman to woman. Our attachment to food is similar to that of sex and we will get messages from the brain through taste/smell that will alert us that a particular food will keep us alive longer just like a new woman will help spread our genes further and further.
Unfortunately I think that neither strategy (changing from woman to woman or from food to food) will provide further happiness or health than simply sticking to more or less similar food and woman combinations for a lifetime.
Essentially instinctos chasing after different more appealing fruits are not very different than sex addicts going from one woman to the next once tiring of the current woman. No different than drug addicts going from one drug to another. Well perhaps different in the fact that this addiction is not going to lead to overdose but it does lead to denial, defensiveness, guruness and expertness and unwillingness to change.
-
For example: This exact example does not matter, its simply trying to show as an exercise in thought of what might happen to your internal survival systems when on the instincto diet
In this example when the word "I" is used, it will represent the brain speaking.
When I use "Iguana", it will be Iguanas body, senses, emotions and so forth (the end result of the messages the brain is sending
Whenever you have had avocados for 4 days straight, your brain is thinking "damn, I know these avocados are giving me some pleasure and survival, I don't need to keep sending in spikes of dopamine and glutamine to let Iguana know that these avocados are keeping him alive. I don't have to keep the senses heightened through taste and smell anymore. I can relax them, since I know that Iguana is safe.
Now after 4 days and the survival systems are calmed down and food is relatively bland tasting and there is no dopamine kick anymore Iguana will perhaps come across a piece of salmon.
When Iguana sees this salmon his brain will say, "damn, what is this salmon, it is quite different than those avocados. This salmon could provide a much needed source of nutrition if avocados become scarce. This salmon is calorie dense and full of protein and other great sources of nutrition. Let me make sure that Iguana knows that this salmon is very important for survival. I will now heighten his senses both taste and smell and give him a nice shot of dopamine (which makes Iguana feel good) and a shot of glutamine (which makes Iguana remember) so that Iguana can survive optimally.
Now Iguana thinks that salmon has some important nutrients that were missing from the avocado but in reality its really the hedonic system that is deeply embedded in all of us that is alerting the organism(Iguana) that a particular food is going to keep him alive longer.
Eventually the salmon will no longer provide the same dopamine kick and the glutamine will not be needed as it is stored in memory for the time being. The senses become less heightened and return to normal until the next food comes along and the pattern repeats ad infinitum.
Please feel free to rebut this argument
-
I like the variety of women part.
Although the objective of that is spreading the genes.
I think what we are all gunning for here go in different directions such as:
- longevity
- healing
- strength
- athleticism (in different directions)
- etc.
-
That's why I recommend to check regularly with wild meat (goose is ideal!)
Why do you recommend wild goose?
-
Wait a minute, didn't you also complain about over-complicating things? ;D
Ooops, my bad, Lowenherz. I misread what you had written. You said NOT complicated. So very long posts are OK as long as they are not complicated. Got it.
Only problem with that is that nature IS infinitely complex, as I mentioned before, so the trick will be to somehow translate natural phenomena into relatively simple language without oversimplifying or leaving out key points. Not an easy task and one that even the best science writers struggle with, but I will strive for it.
-
Why do you recommend wild goose?
It was a hint about your experience. Birds are better for our immune system because their proteins are more remote from ours than proteins of mammals, and therefore they induce less confusion by our immune system. Wild goose has a very strong taste (much more than chicken or beef) which makes the instinctive stop very sure, so you couldn’t eat more than a palm.
Good Samaritan:
You certainly are right when you say American fruits cannot compare with yours from Philippines.
A very simple way to know if you eat too much fat is greasy hair or skin, particularly nose and brow. But the taste and consistency indicate it too: as soon as it appears less tasteful and less melt-in-the-mouth, you begin overeating.
I’m afraid the principle one must eat a LOT of animal fat is a new urban legend in the world of dietetics…
Paleo donk:
Experiment instincto first and speak later! For sure, your body will see things more clearly than your brain.
Now, if you find a woman who feels happy all her life with an unique paleo dink, it’s all right!
-
It was a hint about your experience. Birds are better for our immune system because their proteins are more remote from ours than proteins of mammals, and therefore they induce less confusion by our immune system. Wild goose has a very strong taste (much more than chicken or beef) which makes the instinctive stop very sure, so you couldn’t eat more than a palm.
If wild birds' proteins are remote...
...then wild ocean fish / clams / oysters / shrimp / crab must be remote from us as well?
-
It was a hint about your experience. Birds are better for our immune system because their proteins are more remote from ours than proteins of mammals, and therefore they induce less confusion by our immune system.
I prefer the taste of wild land mammal meats to wild bird meats, so per your law of the alimentary instinct, shouldn't I eat more of the mammal meats, despite concerns about the immunogenicity of the proteins?
-
If wild birds' proteins are remote...
...then wild ocean fish / clams / oysters / shrimp / crab must be remote from us as well?
Absolutely ! It seems actually those proteins don’t have the pernicious effects the mammals' proteins have.
I prefer the taste of wild land mammal meats to wild bird meats, so per your law of the alimentary instinct, shouldn't I eat more of the mammal meats, despite concerns about the immunogenicity of the proteins?
If in this moment you prefer wild land mammals, then eat wild land mammals. When your need for this class of proteins will be covered, you’ll probably often prefer other sources, like birds or shellfish or arthropods or fish, or nuts.
However, this self equilibration doesn’t work rightly if you systematically lack other important classes of nutrients, like vegetables, fruits, etc. In this case, your organism can try to compensate the lacks and remain a too long time on the same source, with the deficiencies it may cause in the longer term.
It is also possible that your appetite decreases because you lack certain substances needed to digest those provided by your diet, or you become bulimic if your organism is trying to cope with a too restricted class of nutrients. Unilateral inputs always result eventually to disturbances of one kind or another.
-
You are a fool, you know. Any basic search online will show you that cooked animal foods, especially cooked animal fats such as heated dairy products, have the highest load of heat-created toxins, much much higher than cooked plant foods, however PUFA-rich they might be:-
You missed the point.
PLANT PUFAs in higher amounts are already extremely unhealthy in their RAW state. You don't need to cook them to make them toxic.
If you still don't want to believe this, try it.
As for my own experience, I did far better on a (largely-cooked) 100 percent vegan diet than I ever did on cooked-palaeo, for instance. In short, the whole PUFA issue is a waste of time.
I can't see any logic in these two sentences.
Löwenherz
-
Such talk of anti-fruit makes me believe the fruits you get are far different from mine.
Of course, but there are also other factors. Please don't forget our metabolism. It makes a big difference if you eat papayas and mangos in a hot and humid tropical climate with max sunshine or if you eat such fruit sugar at zero degrees Celsius in the darkness of northern Europe.
Löwenherz
-
PLANT PUFAs in higher amounts are already extremely unhealthy in their RAW state. You don't need to cook them to make them toxic
Please indicate an example, so that we understand what you mean. I think we don't speak about the same thing.
-
Paleophil,
Didn't I answer you here?
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/raw-paleo-diet-is-mimicking-the-garden-of-eden-times/msg80703/#msg80703 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/raw-paleo-diet-is-mimicking-the-garden-of-eden-times/msg80703/#msg80703)
(second part!)
-
Paleophil,
Didn't I answer you here?
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/raw-paleo-diet-is-mimicking-the-garden-of-eden-times/msg80703/#msg80703 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/raw-paleo-diet-is-mimicking-the-garden-of-eden-times/msg80703/#msg80703)
(second part!)
Thanks for posting here! You're an inspiration to me
-
Ah, thanks. Sorry , I tried to read the forum via iPod, which has a rather small screen, and I thought that post was only addressed to GS, but I see it also responded to my question.
Absolutely ! It seems actually those proteins don’t have the pernicious effects the mammals' proteins have.
My goodness, mammals' proteins are sounding worse and worse. Are they really pernicious?
If in this moment you prefer wild land mammals, then eat wild land mammals. When your need for this class of proteins will be covered, you’ll probably often prefer other sources, like birds or shellfish or arthropods or fish, or nuts.
I do like variety, though my overall preference for red meats over others hasn't changed.
However, this self equilibration doesn’t work rightly if you systematically lack other important classes of nutrients, like vegetables, fruits, etc. In this case, your organism can try to compensate the lacks and remain a too long time on the same source, with the deficiencies it may cause in the longer term.
I do eat high quality raw fruits and veggies and I do use my alliesthetic mechanism to help determine which ones to buy and eat, so I'm in step with you there.
It is also possible that your appetite decreases because you lack certain substances needed to digest those provided by your diet, or you become bulimic if your organism is trying to cope with a too restricted class of nutrients. Unilateral inputs always result eventually to disturbances of one kind or another.
I like other meats and fish and eat a variety of raw foods, I just prefer the taste of red meats over other meats and fish and I don't think this is particularly uncommon. I've never been bulimic or had any other eating disorder, luckily.
-
My goodness, mammals' proteins are sounding worse and worse. Are they really pernicious?
Mammals' proteins can be of high nutritional value. The effect of too much and too frequent intake of mammals' proteins may be worse than that of other proteins, because of the similarity with our own proteins. Plants' proteins would be the most remote, so the least dangerous. But experiments systematically show they are not sufficient. The point is not the kind, but the quantity and the repetitiveness of each food intake. So, your fondness for variety is surely the best deal.
I do like variety, though my overall preference for red meats over others hasn't changed.
The only problem is then the non natural taste of domesticated animals’ meat: the instinctive stop may not warn you correctly of an overload. Thus you are better of with game meat, at least intermittently in order to acknowledge a potential overdose of mammals’ meat.
A question: for how many years have you been eating raw red meat regularly?
-
Mammals' proteins can be of high nutritional value. The effect of too much and too frequent intake of mammals' proteins may be worse than that of other proteins, because of the similarity with our own proteins. Plants' proteins would be the most remote, so the least dangerous.
Can you point to any evidence other than your experience and that of the dieters you supervised to support this hypothesis? My own experience has been that plant proteins have been much more problematic for my immune system than mammal proteins.
The only problem is then the non natural taste of domesticated animals’ meat: the instinctive stop may not warn you correctly of an overload.
I also prefer the taste of wild red meats to other wild meats, so this is a nonfactor in my taste preference. I agree that wild meats are likely superior to domestic, especially when the domestic animals are fed diets that differ greatly from their natural wild diets and the wild game are eating wild foods and getting enough to eat.
A question: for how many years have you been eating raw red meat regularly?
A little over 2 years. Do you hypothesize that at some point I will start to prefer wild fowl to wild mammal meats? If so, what is your best estimate of how long it will take for that to occur?
-
Can you point to any evidence other than your experience and that of the dieters you supervised to support this hypothesis?
The instincto diet allows to observe some facts which remain unobservable when masked by all disorders induced by a “standard” diet. So I could easily see a lot of cases which showed me this effect on immune system and then I formulated an adequate theory. Medicine doesn’t deal with food antigens so that the link between food and immune system disorders couldn’t be taken into account. Only one researcher (Jean Seignalet http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Seignalet (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Seignalet)), who had watched one of my lectures made a series of experiences with auto-immune diseases suffering patients and could verify the phenomenon.
My own experience has been that plant proteins have been much more problematic for my immune system than mammal proteins.
Tell me please which plant proteins you ate, how you assured your regulation, which guaranties of non processing you had, and which symptoms you could notice.
I also prefer the taste of wild red meats to other wild meats, so this is a nonfactor in my taste preference.
I think you didn’t understand what I mean: it's not a difference between red or white meat, but the fact that the genetic drift of domesticated animals causes their meat to lack a normal instinctive stop (whatever the color of their meat). When you talked about red meat, didn’t you mostly refer to the consumption of beef?
I agree that wild meats are likely superior to domestic, especially when the domestic animals are fed diets that differ greatly from their natural wild diets and the wild game are eating wild foods and getting enough to eat.
You’re right, denatured diet modifies the nutritional value and taste of domestic animals, but genetics does much more. Wild boars living in nature or fed processed food are different in taste and diverge somewhat in causing an instinctive stop, but that difference is perhaps ten times less than between wild boar and pork when both have been fed the same kind of food.
A little over 2 years. Do you hypothesize that at some point I will start to prefer wild fowl to wild mammal meats? If so, what is your best estimate of how long it will take for that to occur?
Honestly, it’s very short to draw conclusions. I waited twenty years before I published mine.
No one can hypothesize anything about your future preferences, everybody being different – and differently intoxicated from previous diets. But if someone persists with meat of domesticated animals for several years, he/she will never discover the true taste of wild game because of a likely overload of animal proteins.
-
But if someone persists with meat of domesticated animals for several years, he/she will never discover the true taste of wild game because of a likely overload of animal proteins.
I have no access to wild game land animals.
Where I live, the only wild game I can get is from the ocean, the far away lakes and far away rivers. And ocean stuff is plentiful I can get every day.
-
Gcb, what are your thoughts regarding American Indians eating in some areas mostly Buffalo, well, I suppose they also ate birds, rabbits, turtles, snakes, ok I answered my own question, but some really subsisted on Buffalo, of which I mostly due during the summer months when the animals are killed on green pastures, and mostly eat cow during the winter months. I live in Northern ca. and can get cow eating green, not brown dry grass, all year around. I don't find the stop of a buffalo any different to a cow, the buffalo being almost non messed with in terms of breed stocks..
-
The instincto diet allows to observe some facts which remain unobservable when masked by all disorders induced by a “standard” diet. So I could easily see a lot of cases which showed me this effect on immune system and then I formulated an adequate theory. Medicine doesn’t deal with food antigens so that the link between food and immune system disorders couldn’t be taken into account.
It doesn't often, but it sometimes does, as do some scientists (Loren Cordain and Boyd Eaton spring to mind). I think I know what you mean, though, as modern medicine unfortunately tends to downplay food antigens and typically speculatively claim that cooking neutralizes enough of them to not be concerned.
Only one researcher (Jean Seignalet http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Seignalet (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Seignalet)), who had watched one of my lectures made a series of experiences with auto-immune diseases suffering patients and could verify the phenomenon.
Unfortunately, he passed away, as you likely know. Did he publish his findings on this?
Tell me please which plant proteins you ate, how you assured your regulation, which guaranties of non processing you had, and which symptoms you could notice.
I didn't assure anything, I just found that wheat, soy and even rice were more of a problem for me than raw meat, and still are. Even legumes that are edible raw and fruits are less-well tolerated by me than raw meat, fat, organs and eggs.
I think you didn’t understand what I mean: it's not a difference between red or white meat, but the fact that the genetic drift of domesticated animals causes their meat to lack a normal instinctive stop (whatever the color of their meat).
So red meats are OK as long as they're wild or nearly so?
When you talked about red meat, didn’t you mostly refer to the consumption of beef?
Also venison, bison, elk, moose, bear. I'm not really big on moose or bear meat, but the others are yum, yum. Wild venison meat is my favorite so far. I do like duck meat too, just not as much as venison. And wild deer suet is the best suet I've tried so far. It was beautiful to behold. I like wild boar meat too, but I think that is considered a white meat, yes? Of the fowl, duck meat is my favorite so far and it is darker in color than the white-meat fowl.
Honestly, it’s very short to draw conclusions. I waited twenty years before I published mine.
So two years is not enough time to rely on the alliesthetic mechanism? This is quite surprising after reading your published materials and forum posts. When does the alliesthetic mechanism finally become reliable? Only after 20 years, or any sooner?
Gcb, what are your thoughts regarding American Indians eating in some areas mostly Buffalo, well, I suppose they also ate birds, rabbits, turtles, snakes, ok I answered my own question, but some really subsisted on Buffalo, of which I mostly due during the summer months when the animals are killed on green pastures, and mostly eat cow during the winter months. I live in Northern ca. and can get cow eating green, not brown dry grass, all year around. I don't find the stop of a buffalo any different to a cow, the buffalo being almost non messed with in terms of breed stocks..
This is an excellent question, thank you Van. I have heard that the Lakota Oyate used to eat so much buffalo that they were sometimes called the buffalo people (because they have taken in the spirits of the buffalo when they ate them), and that they therefore regard the buffalo as relatives. They claim that the buffalo meat, fat, etc. is "pejuta wašte," good medicine and the source of strength of their warriors.
Mind you, I'm not trying to advocate for any "noble savage" notions or any such nonsense. I just don't dismiss thousands of years of a relatively healthy traditional people's experience without good reason. That would seem to be just as unreasonable, especially given that hominins have been eating raw mammal meats for million of years.
-
So two years is not enough time to rely on the alliesthetic mechanism? This is quite surprising after reading your published materials and forum posts. When does the alliesthetic mechanism finally become reliable? Only after 20 years, or any sooner?
I'm just on almost 4 years of RPD plus some 4 months of raw vegan / fruit. And I'm amazed at changes in myself and my cravings / tastes.
I've gone through binges on red meat, on oysters, on dates, on durian, on horse. It took me 2 years to like straight from the refrigerator cold red meat. Lately on my 4th year my appetite for red meat has lessened since 2 months ago. Maybe it will change again. Who knows what I'll discover next.
-
I actually am not eating much red meat these days, but I still love it just as much.
-
GCB,
my own experience with this is, when I ate beef (organic, grass and grainfed) I could not eat it for long and it started to taste disgusting to me. After that I could only get it down slightly fried in the pan with salt an pepper. Yeah, stupid of course.
But now I eat elk every day, raw without spices. It is my staple food (I do eat fresh wildcaught fish and oysterz etc. for variation - some fruits (Orkos) too at times). I just love the elk - also the organs. Makes me feel so good. I cannot imagine I will never get tired of it. It so belongs to here (Finland). I guess long long ago when no agriculture existed here, that was the staplefood of people living here. Also reindeer. There are no fruits growing, berries yes, but you cannot live from them only. You could get some fish also - except the Sea is quite polluted here because of Russia.
How comes hat tribes living on mostly mammal-meat do not became cancer? As long as they ate it the natural way, not smoked and salted and fried..
I just cannot get it out of my head, as I have been thinking exactly the same thoughts as Van.
How could the Indians survive on mostly mammals meat?
If your hypothesis is, meat from mammals might give cancer - how do you explain people who healed from cancer eating raw meat from mammals?
I am just so confused.
Are you sure you have not mis-impreted the cause of your wife's cancer? Maybe it was stress, causing it? Cancer often have also psychological causes. I am sure your wife was eating lot of delicious fruits along with the 200 grams of mammal-meat.. who knows if that was not so good? Too much sugar? From domesticated sources? It would be intresting to know what else your wife ate, in addition to the beef.
Was she stressed out, or harmoniously happy? Was your marriage happy and fulfilling for both of you?
I guess all these things have to be shed light on to really know more about the causes of her cancer.
I am sorry if I go too close with all these questions, it must have been a terrible loss to loose your wife that early. -[
But I ask cause I have the feeling you also want to clear up misunderstandings.
Just wanted to add, I do not believe it is good to eat meat only. The Indians, and every tribe that ate lot of meat also ate wild berries (that are known to have great anticancer properties) as also wild herbs, mushrooms etc. Might be, that these were needed to eliminate the possibly negative consequences of eating that much mammal meat...?
Could that be? So that is why they stayed healthy?
I do eat a lot of wild berries and greens (in summer)... it feels just so good to eat them. Like they were needed somehow.
Inger
-
MUSHROOMS!!!
I just heard Daniel Vitalis talk at oneradionetwork.com and he said that wild humans probably ate a good amount of wild mushrooms.
So which mushrooms should I try?
-
MUSHROOMS!!!
I just heard Daniel Vitalis talk at oneradionetwork.com and he said that wild humans probably ate a good amount of wild mushrooms.
So which mushrooms should I try?
I suspect this nonsense was dreamed up by the pro-drugs-lobby. Their idea is that palaeo man spent his life stoned on hallucinogenic mushrooms.
-
I suspect this nonsense was dreamed up by the pro-drugs-lobby. Their idea is that palaeo man spent his life stoned on hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... probably.
Must remember not to take mushroom eating too seriously.
-
No no no.... I am NOT talking about psychedelic mushroom's now. >D
I talk about other mushrooms like the Chaga-mushroom;
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2908/250pxinonotusobliquus.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/250pxinonotusobliquus.jpg/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inonotus_obliquus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inonotus_obliquus)
Inger
-
So two years is not enough time to rely on the alliesthetic mechanism? This is quite surprising after reading your published materials and forum posts. When does the alliesthetic mechanism finally become reliable? Only after 20 years, or any sooner?
It looks like there’s a severe misunderstanding here. Our alliesthesic mechanisms can always be relied upon, ever since birth. It’s just that they are fooled by food processing, mixing, cooking; in short by any new stuff or process appeared or made available too recently for the natural selection to adapt them, if ever possible.
In practice, our alliesthesic mechanisms work well enough from the very first day of instinctive raw paleo nutrition because they had already always been working with all raw paleo stuff.
I think GCB was speaking about something else, such as scientific conclusions.
So red meats are OK as long as they're wild or nearly so?
Yes, that’s what I understand. ;)
-
GCB,
my own experience with this is, when I ate beef (organic, grass and grainfed) I could not eat it for long and it started to taste disgusting to me. After that I could only get it down slightly fried in the pan with salt an pepper. Yeah, stupid of course.
But now I eat elk every day, raw without spices. It is my staple food (I do eat fresh wildcaught fish and oysterz etc. for variation - some fruits (Orkos) too at times). I just love the elk - also the organs. Makes me feel so good. I cannot imagine I will never get tired of it. It so belongs to here (Finland). I guess long long ago when no agriculture existed here, that was the staplefood of people living here. Also reindeer. There are no fruits growing, berries yes, but you cannot live from them only. You could get some fish also - except the Sea is quite polluted here because of Russia.
How comes hat tribes living on mostly mammal-meat do not became cancer? As long as they ate it the natural way, not smoked and salted and fried..
I just cannot get it out of my head, as I have been thinking exactly the same thoughts as Van.
How could the Indians survive on mostly mammals meat?
If your hypothesis is, meat from mammals might give cancer - how do you explain people who healed from cancer eating raw meat from mammals?
I am just so confused.
Are you sure you have not mis-impreted the cause of your wife's cancer? Maybe it was stress, causing it? Cancer often have also psychological causes. I am sure your wife was eating lot of delicious fruits along with the 200 grams of mammal-meat.. who knows if that was not so good? Too much sugar? From domesticated sources? It would be intresting to know what else your wife ate, in addition to the beef.
Was she stressed out, or harmoniously happy? Was your marriage happy and fulfilling for both of you?
I guess all these things have to be shed light on to really know more about the causes of her cancer.
I am sorry if I go too close with all these questions, it must have been a terrible loss to loose your wife that early. -[
But I ask cause I have the feeling you also want to clear up misunderstandings.
Just wanted to add, I do not believe it is good to eat meat only. The Indians, and every tribe that ate lot of meat also ate wild berries (that are known to have great anticancer properties) as also wild herbs, mushrooms etc. Might be, that these were needed to eliminate the possibly negative consequences of eating that much mammal meat...?
Could that be? So that is why they stayed healthy?
I do eat a lot of wild berries and greens (in summer)... it feels just so good to eat them. Like they were needed somehow.
Inger
I would also like to know about this. Please reply!
-
I also think these are very relevant points that should be fully addressed and clarified. GCB wrote a long article about it in Instincto Magazine n° 62, June 1994. (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM62-cancer.html)I can’t translate it all, but here is an extract of his conclusion:
One should not infer from all this that meat is harmful in itself. Experience has also shown it can play a vital role in the reconstruction of the body weight as well as in the recovery and healing of diseases, including cancer. What is harmful is imbalance.
-
It looks like there’s a severe misunderstanding here. Our alliesthesic mechanisms can always be relied upon, ever since birth. It’s just that they are fooled by food processing, mixing, cooking; in short by any new stuff or process appeared or made available too recently for the natural selection to adapt them, if ever possible.
I was talking about raw wild red meats when I spoke of my taste preference for red meats, not processing, mixing, cooking or any new stuff or process.
As for obtaining a properly functioning alliesthetic mechanism that one can rely on, it's not possible for me to eat only wild meats, and if it takes more than two years before one can draw any conclusions, that's rather disappointing and would make it difficult to know what to do. If it takes 20 years, that's even more daunting.
-
But now I eat elk every day, raw without spices. It is my staple food (I do eat fresh wildcaught fish and oysterz etc. for variation - some fruits (Orkos) too at times). I just love the elk - also the organs. Makes me feel so good.
Elk must be really delicious! I have never eaten it. I found a shop in Berlin where I can get prefrozen ground elk meat from Sweden and (if I remember correctly) from Finland. The sellers say that elk meat is always wild. Can I trust them?
Is Elk meat always wild game meat?
How would you describe the difference to grass-fed beef?
Löwenherz
-
I was talking about raw wild red meats when I spoke of my taste preference for red meats, not processing, mixing, cooking or any new stuff or process.
As for obtaining a properly functioning alliesthetic mechanism that one can rely on, it's not possible for me to eat only wild meats, and if it takes more than two years before one can draw any conclusions, that's rather disappointing and would make it difficult to know what to do. If it takes 20 years, that's even more daunting.
Again a misunderstanding: I said two years would be insufficient not to set up the allesthesic functions, but to see the links between overload of animal proteins and immune diseases.
If raw wild meat smells and tastes attractive, you certainly need this food at the moment. But it would be wrong to conclude the same quantities may remain attractive and sane for twenty years. This is the difference between Instincto and conventional dietetics reasoning: the needs are always varying and unpredictable. Thus, it is always a delusion to believe we could apply rules about what and how much would be healthy or unhealthy.
Sorry, I’m very busy at the moment: I’ll answer to the other posts Sunday or Monday.
-
Again a misunderstanding: I said two years would be insufficient not to set up the allesthesic functions, but to see the links between overload of animal proteins and immune diseases.
So I can go by my alliesthetic mechanism after all? Great! It tells me lots of high quality red meat for me, including plenty of my nephews' wild venison (they got two deer this year).
If raw wild meat smells and tastes attractive, you certainly need this food at the moment. But it would be wrong to conclude the same quantities may remain attractive and sane for twenty years.
Don't worry, I'm not making any forecasts, though I've liked high quality red meat my entire life quite a bit, so the odds are good that I'll like it long into the future.
This is the difference between Instincto and conventional dietetics reasoning: the needs are always varying and unpredictable.
I don't find that so much in my experience when I'm eating 100% raw Paleo and frequently utilizing my alliesthetic mechanism. I find the food generally more satisfying and nutritive than the Standard Industrial Diet, so that I don't have to vary it a lot if I don't wish to, though I sometimes do vary it some for additional pleasure and adventure, as well as to avoid potential theoretical deficiencies.
Thus, it is always a delusion to believe we could apply rules about what and how much would be healthy or unhealthy.
Wonderful, that's reassuring. So I don't have to abide by any rule that artificially limits intake of high quality mammal meat or favors fowl over mammal meat of equal or greater quality?
-
Löwenherz,
Elk must be really delicious! I have never eaten it. I found a shop in Berlin where I can get prefrozen ground elk meat from Sweden and (if I remember correctly) from Finland. The sellers say that elk meat is always wild. Can I trust them?
Is Elk meats always wild game meat?
How would you describe the difference to grass-fed beef?
Löwenherz
yes, in Scandinavia / Estonia where I get my elk from, it is always wild.
There might be some hunters who put out food for them in the winter, vegetables and hay and maybe some grains (?). I am not concerned about that though, it is so little anyway. Remember, wild game eat from the agricutured fields too. Sure it is best to eat game from places with no agriculture. Almost impossible today, but better the more north you travel I would say.
I have heard about farmed elk in USA. But here, no.
Elk tastes.. hmm. Some says it has a gamey taste but I find it quite mild tasting? Sure it has a stronger taste than Beef. Maybe the taste is a little iron-like? More complex that beef though. Complex and rich. :)
Inger
-
Thanks Inger!!
Löwenherz
-
To Paleo Phil
GCB : Thus, it is always a delusion to believe we could apply rules about what and how much would be healthy or unhealthy.
W onderful, that's reassuring. So I don't have to abide by any rule that artificially limits intake of high quality mammal meat or favors fowl over mammal meat of equal or greater quality?
This stands true only with non domesticated animals (as already mentioned several times, instinctive stop is very hazy with beef, mutton, pork…) and furthermore if you have a sufficient choice at your disposal. If you mentally restrain your choice to red meat, your body will cope with it to find calories and other nutrients, and the taste will remain more or less attractive. That is then the danger, the need of nutrients goes over the immune problems, and you can eat and eat meat as though it were necessary to your organism. But in the long run severe problems may arise.
As a matter of fact, meat seems then necessary (and so not repulsive) because you don’t have anything else than meat at your disposal. To find out if you need something else, you must at first have a large choice of products, stop eating meat for a little while and by every meal try all products to see which one will help you to come out of the vicious circle.
You can’t know if you really need great quantities of meat without trying regularly other foodstuffs in sufficient variety. Within the above conditions, I never saw people who still ate instinctively very large quantities of meat for more than some weeks – or a few months in the most extreme cases.
To Inger
But now I eat elk every day, raw without spices. It is my staple food (I do eat fresh wildcaught fish and oysterz etc. for variation - some fruits (Orkos) too at times). I just love the elk - also the organs. Makes me feel so good. I cannot imagine I will never get tired of it. It so belongs to here (Finland).
Elk tastes... hmm. Some says it has a gamey taste but I find it quite mild tasting? Sure it has a stronger taste than Beef. Maybe the taste is a little iron-like? More complex that beef though. Complex and rich.
Exactly so: I noticed, as part of instincto that red meat taste slightly iron-like when we become overloaded with it. When I read you, my first reaction would be that you eat too much meat, perhaps because you force yourself mentally to consume it in priority against other foods. I myself was a victim of this type of bias: knowing by nutritional science that it provides important elements, I had from the beginning (from about 1966) a favorable a priori for meat, so that I regularly forced somewhat the instinctive stops. As I ate mainly beef at the time, whose taste veers only very slightly to stop, I found myself overloaded to the point of a tumor in my left knee (in 1988), which recurred after surgery and then faded spontaneously simply by adjusting the protein intake correctly.
I guess long long ago when no agriculture existed here, that was the staplefood of people living here. Also reindeer. There are no fruits growing, berries yes, but you cannot live from them only. You could get some fish also - except the Sea is quite polluted here because of Russia.
How comes hat tribes living on mostly mammal-meat do not became cancer? As long as they ate it the natural way, not smoked and salted and fried…
Of course there is not much else to eat in these latitudes. But we cannot think like you do, because the human body isn’t genetically adapted to such climates. It is through the fire, hunting and perhaps cooking that our distant ancestors left the tropics to settle in the cold regions. Moreover, data are missing on how their body reacted, what their illnesses, their rates of cancer, their lifespan, etc. were and what exactly they ate. Fortunately you have a more varied diet, but your wording resonates sometimes like the one of people who don’t apply the rules of instinctive regulation.
I just cannot get it out of my head, as I have been thinking exactly the same thoughts as Van. How could the Indians survive on mostly mammals meat?
Beware of claims boasted in lack of any reliable data: AFAIK there have been no studies that determines the amount of meat consumed by the Indians or the quantities of other food they could find, nor their lifespan and diseases. BTW, they were decimated by the smallpox brought by the Europeans. The only thing we can say is that they lived long enough to breed, but here in Europe, with the awful nutrition of the Middle Ages, people could also reproduce - otherwise we would not be here. In lack of sound scientific data, I prefer to trust my own observations.
If your hypothesis is, meat from mammals might give cancer - how do you explain people who healed from cancer eating raw meat from mammals?
Beware of reasoning: I don’t say that meat of mammals always gives cancer! I say that an overload of proteins, especially of mammals, can cause certain cancers in the long run. The cases you're talking about may be about people who ate a lot of cooked meat, cheese etc.. and have dropped below the overload threshold by eating raw meat. We must also see how long these "cures" lasted. In addition, stories of healing make more noise than those of people who die of their cancer as the norm is...
Are you sure you have not mis-impreted the cause of your wife's cancer?
It’s the hypothesis that is the most likely in view of my own case given above and a few others cases.
Maybe it was stress, causing it? Cancer often have also psychological causes. Was she stressed out, or harmoniously happy? Was your marriage happy and fulfilling for both of you?
I am personally convinced that stress also played a role. My wife very poorly endured a tax adjustment as the French administration is so expert in, something which threatened to totally wreck us. But I don’t think the psychological pressure alone has been enough to disrupt her immune system. The psychological cause does not preclude the physiological cause.
I am sure your wife was eating lot of delicious fruits along with the 200 grams of mammal-meat.. who knows if that was not so good? Too much sugar? From domesticated sources? It would be intresting to know what else your wife ate, in addition to the beef.
She did not eat more fruits and sweet foods than other instinctos, rather less precisely because she compensated for it with meat, always consumed at the beginning of the meal. I have never seen a correlation between large portions of sweet fruit and tumors. But it is true that I have no experience of people eating a lot of meat and nothing else, as when we obey to our instinct it automatically prevents unilateral diets.
The Indians, and every tribe that ate lot of meat also ate wild berries (that are known to have great anticancer properties) as also wild herbs, mushrooms etc. Might be, that these were needed to eliminate the possibly negative consequences of eating that much mammal meat...?
We don’t use such ways of thinking in the instincto context: it’s not the anti-cancer properties of vegetables that prevent cancer, but rather the fact that these plants prevent imbalances that would result from a too one-sided consumption of meat.
I do eat a lot of wild berries and greens (in summer)... it feels just so good to eat them. Like they were needed somehow.
You follow your instinct here and you’re spot-on!
To Goodsamaritan
If wild birds' proteins are remote...
...then wild ocean fish / clams / oysters / shrimp / crab must be remote from us as well?
Indeed, it is probably better to focus in order, on: plant proteins (nuts, lentils, peas...), shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels ...), arthropods (shrimp, crabs, crayfish, insects ... ), wild ocean fish (sardines, mackerel, herring ...), eggs, poultry (goose, duck, chicken... or better: wild birds), and if nothing in the above is satisfying, wild mammal meat. These kind of intellectual preferences seems a priori contrary to a purely instinctive choice but we should take account of the fact that, if we exclude the relatively recently mastered hunting techniques, meat of large mammals is somewhat difficult to obtain in nature and leftovers from predators are relatively rare. So, over some weeks or months, your’e sure to cover your needs in the best conditions.
I have this same experience as Iguana.
Such talk of anti-fruit makes me believe the fruits you get are far different from mine.
You’re right: I could see in America how fruit tasted, even 50 years ago. I think they are much more fade and boring now with all the advances in agricultural industry… Even here in Europe, instincto is hardly praticable with the commercial fruits. That’s why I created a predecessor of Orkos in Switzerland in the 70s. BTW I have no longer any interest in Orkos...
-
AFAIK there have been no studies that determines the amount of meat consumed by the Indians or the quantities of other food they could find, nor their lifespan and diseases.
At least it seems to be generally accepted that even the Lakota (Paleophil´s "buffalo people") were originally farmers.
"Before they adopted a nomadic lifestyle, the Lakota grew corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes and other crops. After they acquired horses and gained the ability to travel quickly, they traded buffalo hides and other valuables for corn and other vegetables they needed."
http://www.ehow.com/info_8748309_did-lakota-indians-eat.html (http://www.ehow.com/info_8748309_did-lakota-indians-eat.html)
-
To Paleo Phil
This stands true only with non domesticated animals (as already mentioned several times, instinctive stop is very hazy with beef, mutton, pork…) and furthermore if you have a sufficient choice at your disposal.
Please note that I was careful to specify "equal or greater quality." If better than domesticated is available and I can afford it, I assure you that I choose that. I select the best that I can afford of everything when it comes to food, and I use the alliesthetic mechanism to choose the best tasting foods of all that are available and not exorbitantly expensive for me.
If you mentally restrain your choice to red meat
I haven't the slightest inclination to do that. As I have explained, it is instead my alliesthetic mechanism that urges me to eat the highest quality red meat. You're not suggesting I should ignore that mechanism, are you?
To find out if you need something else, you must at first have a large choice of products,
Not everyone has such a choice, so you may wish to warn them about this important factor. Luckily, I am favored with better-than-average choice in America. While the meats and seafood choices available to me at my income level are not sufficient to eat only wild, they are very high quality indeed as compared to what's available to the average American and do include a fair portion of wild flesh.
stop eating meat for a little while and by every meal try all products to see which one will help you to come out of the vicious circle.
What is a little while and why do you assume it is a vicious circle?
You can’t know if you really need great quantities of meat without trying regularly other foodstuffs in sufficient variety.
No need to fear, I most assuredly do. Variety, spice and adventure are my middle names.
Within the above conditions, I never saw people who still ate instinctively very large quantities of meat for more than some weeks – or a few months in the most extreme cases.
Not even the traditional Inuit, Ache, Masai, Chukchi, Nenets, or Samburu? If so, then you are at odds with Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this. I know that eating a lot of meat is not necessary for many people (the Kitavans spring to mind), but surely you aren't arguing that no one can instinctively eat plentiful quantities of high quality meats?
-
Not even the traditional Inuit, Ache, Masai, Chukchi, Nenets, or Samburu? If so, then you are at odds with Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this. I know that eating a lot of meat is not necessary for many people (the Kitavans spring to mind), but surely you aren't arguing that no one can instinctively eat plentiful quantities of high quality meats?
I think Phil has the right of this one.
My hypothesis is that GCB's wife got cancer because she was eating grain-fed meat, or meat that was from cows eating some type of unnatural diet. Certainly plenty of traditional groups eat lots of meat, and don't get cancer.
-
Please note that I was careful to specify "equal or greater quality." If better than domesticated is available and I can afford it, I assure you that I choose that. I select the best that I can afford of everything when it comes to food, and I use the alliesthetic mechanism to choose the best tasting foods of all that are available and not exorbitantly expensive for me.
That’s fine, Phil!
I haven't the slightest inclination to do that. As I have explained, it is instead my alliesthetic mechanism that urges me to eat the highest quality red meat. You're not suggesting I should ignore that mechanism, are you?
No, I’m not. I was speaking in general, for all the readers and not specifically for you – and this is valid for the whole of my answer.
What is a little while and why do you assume it is a vicious circle?
A few days, perhaps. The vicious circle is what I described so: “If you mentally restrain your choice to red meat, your body will cope with it to find calories and other nutrients, and the taste will remain more or less attractive. That is then the danger, the need of nutrients goes over the immune problems, and you can eat and eat meat as though it were necessary to your organism.” Again, this wasn’t specifically directed to you.
Not even the traditional Inuit, Ache, Masai, Chukchi, Nenets, or Samburu? If so, then you are at odds with Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this. I know that eating a lot of meat is not necessary for many people (the Kitavans spring to mind), but surely you aren't arguing that no one can instinctively eat plentiful quantities of high quality meats?
Of course I’m not!
I wrote “Within the above conditions”. This meant I was referring to what I observed as part of instinctive raw paleo nutrition in my Center, where a lot of different foods were available so that everyone, including sick people, could quickly find the most suitable nutrients for their case and their health recovery.
I wasn’t referring to traditional hunther-gatherers who eat also cooked food, have harsh environmental constraints, a limited food choice and a good health from the start because their group has not been shielded from natural selection as most of us have been since a few generations.
At least it seems to be generally accepted that even the Lakota (Paleophil´s "buffalo people") were originally farmers.
"Before they adopted a nomadic lifestyle, the Lakota grew corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes and other crops. After they acquired horses and gained the ability to travel quickly, they traded buffalo hides and other valuables for corn and other vegetables they needed."
http://www.ehow.com/info_8748309_did-lakota-indians-eat.html (http://www.ehow.com/info_8748309_did-lakota-indians-eat.html)
Thanks for that account, Hanna.
Best regards to all of you !
GCB
-
I think Phil has the right of this one.
My hypothesis is that GCB's wife got cancer because she was eating grain-fed meat, or meat that was from cows eating some type of unnatural diet. Certainly plenty of traditional groups eat lots of meat, and don't get cancer.
What was her form / type of cancer? How old was she then?
It's also quite possible she was stressed out by the mere diagnosis being branded as "cancer".
-
What was her form / type of cancer? How old was she then?
It's also quite possible she was stressed out by the mere diagnosis being branded as "cancer".
Yeah, people that I've known have died very shortly after the doctor told them they had cancer and that they were going to die. I find that strange. I bet if the doctor didn't tell them that they would've lived longer or period.
-
Thanks for the clarifications, GCB.
“If you mentally restrain your choice to red meat....
Good heavens, no. That thought never crossed my mind. My alliesthetic mechanism tells me that red meat is delectable, that's all. The only restraint I employ is actually to consciously limit my intake of meat, as I find that too much constipates me, for whatever reason. If I only employed my alliesthetic mechanism I would actually eat MORE red meat, not less.
-
To Cherimoya Kid
There could barely be someone more careful about food quality then me! We meticulously eliminated every food that might be affected not only by molecules of the chemical industry, but also by thermally degraded molecules as in commercial animal feed. The presence of abnormal molecules from grain was also strictly prohibited throughout the whole instincto experiment. All our meats were very strictly from exclusively grass fed cattle or from wild game without any access to corn fields nor garbage.
To Goodsamaritan
Nicole had a carcinoma of the uterus at 56 and deceased at 58 years old.
We can obviously search all kinds of possible explanations. Only overlaps with other cancers cases can allow to see what are the most relevant explanations. My wife had been remained very confident in the instincto, to which she added the Hamer method and prayers. By the way, it is for these reasons that she didn’t agree to reduce her high consumption of meat, even though I had seen on myself the occurrence of a tumor after a very carnivorous phase and its disappearance after restoring my balance – thanks to wild game which doesn’t "deceive" the aliesthesic mechanisms, unlike meat from domestic animals.
It was after this tragedy that I could make the connection with a certain number of cancers cases cured by the instincto who relapsed (or developed a new cancer) in "falling" also into meat overload.
Best regards,
GCB
-
Thank you for sharing your experiences GCB, very much appreciated! Super duper thanks!
In my short experience helping people with cancer, the liver is usually impaired and this makes the quality of the digestive bile poor, whereby the cancer sick needs to temporarily lessen raw meat and fat consumption. Cancer usually involves a LIVER impairment problem component. When the liver's cleanliness and nutrition are slowly built up, only then will the consumption of raw meat and raw fat can be increased. And then raw meat and raw fat can work its magic to heal people.
I myself in 2005 was liver impaired and large quantities of meats would have been a poor choice for that stage in my illness.
In my very recent healing experience with my 10 year old boy, Aajonus Vonderplanitz' opinion on candida and digestive system was correct for my boy's case (that digestion of beef / red meat may be impaired during this time). My boy was on raw paleo diet with only raw duck eggs and various raw sea food for his animal food. I tested his digestive system's health by trying raw beef. At first his skin reacted badly. We continued treatment red meat free for the next 3 weeks and then tried red meat beef again, by this time, my boy was able to digest it trouble free and was actually getting to be beneficial.
-
We can obviously search all kinds of possible explanations. Only overlaps with other cancers cases can allow to see what are the most relevant explanations.
Yes, thanks a lot.
I can testify that you are an extremely meticulous experimenter and observer as well as a strict follower of the scientific methodology.
When we read your article about it in Instincto Magazine n° 62, June 1994 (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM62-cancer.html), I think that most of us, instinctos, thought that you had to provide an explanation, whatever it might be. Personally, I have never thought that instinctive raw paleo nutrition render us bulletproof against cancer because we can’t avoid various carcinogenic substances spread all over the air, water and food chain on this planet. I also thought that Nicole, just like most of us, had eaten cooked food and dairy during several years in her youth and that there are some substances (such as asbestos, for example) that can trigger a cancer decades latter.
At least in Switzerland, we didn’t change our habit to eat a lot of meat. But we had access to wild game such as chamois, venison, deer and even sometimes ibex, while in your Center of Montramé the most commonly consumed meat was beef. That probably accounts for the divergence, as you assume.
Nevertheless, it seems that some instinctos, particularly in France, were destabilized by Nicole’s death and returned to cooked nutrition. Some others overreacted and switched to an inopportune almost vegetarian (but still raw) nutrition, eating meat only once in a way.
After talking with you, listening to and reading your explanations, I finally think that you’re probably right. At least, I’m sure you’re really convinced that your assumption is the most likely.
-
I still blame the quality of the meat, not the quantity...although I do think environmental toxins, as well as genetics, probably played a role. I doubt she would have gotten cancer if she had been eating wild-caught seafood, instead of beef muscle meat. I could be wrong, of course.
-
Yes, we agree. But the culprit was probably the kind of meat (beef muscle) rather than its quality.
-
Yes, we agree. But the culprit was probably the kind of meat (beef muscle) rather than its quality.
Hmm...the Maasai don't seem to get cancer much, though. They are major eaters of beef. Granted, they are probably eating a lot of organs, versus just muscle meat.
-
Thank you GCB,
for taking time to explain all so well. I appreciate that very much, I do.
Intresting that your wife tried Hamers method, and it did not worked.
I have to go and think about this now, as I eat a LOT of muscle meat.
I do am careful to eat almost only wild, though. But I will try to add more seafood and organs, even if I already include them in my diet.
More variation cannot be bad. :)
Mm...the Maasai don't seem to get cancer much, though. They are major eaters of beef. Granted, they are probably eating a lot of organs, versus just muscle meat.
Yes. That might be the point. They ate a lot of organs and such too.
The American Indians ate a lot of fat I think. It was not a mostly muscle meat diet they ate. They also used lot of wild greens and berries and also some edible roots.
Maybe it is not a good idea to eat so much muscle meat, and not the other components.
Sounds very logical to me.
GS,
thank you for sharing your thoughts about liver health / cancer. I have read something similar somewhere, I just don`t know where anymore. As I think about it, many instinctos / rawfooders might have damaged their liver with too much sweet, cultivated fruits (too much fructose is not great for our liver at all), and then to eat a lot of muscle meat on top of that... might have been a bad idea.
Just a thought.
Inger
-
Hmm...the Maasai don't seem to get cancer much, though. They are major eaters of beef. Granted, they are probably eating a lot of organs, versus just muscle meat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet
Meat, although an important food, is consumed irregularly and cannot be classified as a staple food. Animal fats or butter are used in cooking, primarily of porridge, maize, and beans. Butter is also an important infant food. Blood is rarely drunk.”[81]
Are there any statistical study about the cancer rates in the Masai people or do we have to rely on AV’s tales only? Anyway, they consume meat irregularly, just like GCB suggests to avoid the induction of immune system reactions.
http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/AV-Skeptics/message/3732
The Masaii villager mentioned that their lifespan was 80-90 years old. We asked what they do to ensure this...they basically boil what they eat... including the meat...I asked specifically for you:)"
So, it seems they cook quite a lot.
http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/AV-Skeptics/message/3746
We can go back and forth with AV forever, but it's basically a waste
of time. All he ever offers us are hearsay and Aajonisms. We should
ignore the explorers and researchers studying the Masai, because he
met some guy in Los Angeles in 1984 who claimed to be Masai, from
the undocumented splinter group eating all-raw who were stronger,
smarter, taller, and more fierce than the rest. I suppose they were
holding Masai Olympics and spelling bees and quiz shows to find out
who was the strongest and smartest tribe. Strange that none of the
researchers or explorers have mentioned this.
;)
-
Yes, but there were some Masai tribes who required their men ages 15-35 to eat nothing but meat, milk, and blood.
I think the lack of organ meats, and overeating muscle meats, is a serious problem.
-
As I think about it, many instinctos / rawfooders might have damaged their liver with too much sweet, cultivated fruits (too much fructose is not great for our liver at all
Where do these conjectures come from? The instinctos consume significantly less sugar than the average people on common cooked diet. In addition, the sugars they consume are not damaged by heat (no glycation). Furthermore, the instinct ensures extremely precise control, as shown by a variety of criteria. And then they should have the liver in a bad condition??
The reality is that I’ve never heard of any symptoms about liver problems among the still impressive number of people who have practiced instincto long term. If anyone knows such a case I would be happy that he/she reports it: I will immediately take it into account to review the theory (as I always did whenever a contradiction arose and it’s even by this method that I developed the whole theory).
The question is rather to know where this legend saying sweet fruits are necessarily harmful emerged. If there is a problem to solve, I fear it is a psychological matter, not a liver matter... ;)
-
Yes, we agree. But the culprit was probably the kind of meat (beef muscle) rather than its quality.
Oh me poor brain is spinning, trying to understand all this. So if the culprit is the kind of meat rather than the taste of the meat, then it does seem pretty clear that we can't rely on our alliesthetic mechanism alone, but must also consider the kind of meat too, right, such as consciously limit our intake of beef muscle meat regardless of quality?
-
I remember at the castle watching most instinctos living there, including Nicole, eating large quantities of animal protein and also eating ( to me) large amounts of sweet fruit. That for me never has worked. Maybe it's a reduced amount of stomach acid etc... and the dilution of it by eating fruit at the same meal.. Doing so always results in less than ideal digestion, and hence undigested materials going through my colon etc. And then there's blood sugar rises with eating large quantities of meat and fruit. As I have mentioned before, I only watched one or two times people eating good portions of fat along with meat. Although eggs and sea products were also abundant. Nicole also would eat later in the evening, and large amounts. She also would stay up quite late and work into the early morning hours. She was driven. She didn't seem to be at peace. She was also estranged from her husband and alone, at least the several times I visited.
-
I'm very sorry for your loss GCB. :'(
In America 1 out of every 3 women will get cancer. 1 out of ever 2 men. Those are the statistics these days. :o A third of all women and half of all men. When we are talking about these kinds of astronomical numbers I would imagine that it would be very hard to confidently claim one "cause of cancer" for everyone - not without some very large studies. Percentage cures with different therapies is a different kind of claim altogether.
The Gerson folks were the ones that started the "liver" as being over-burdened idea I think - that's why they do coffee enemas - to detox the liver. Also the carrot juice detoxes and nourishes the liver and in earlier times they had people drink raw liver juice.
GCB - thank you so much for coming and explaining things to us. I have to admit though that, like Phil, I am confused and my brain is hurting. Are you saying that even if muscle meat that is grass-fed or wild from pristine spaces smells, feels and tastes good - still - one can eat too much and it could result in cancer? Please excuse me if I'm being a bit dense. I really want to understand this. Is muscle meat not included in the basic instincto principles as I understand them?
-
I remember at the castle watching most instinctos living there, including Nicole, eating large quantities of animal protein and also eating ( to me) large amounts of sweet fruit. That for me never has worked. Maybe it's a reduced amount of stomach acid etc... and the dilution of it by eating fruit at the same meal..
So they used to eat animal protein and fruit at the same meal? Habitual "bad" food combinations are possibly another important point, gcb, aren´t they? However, I don´t understand exactly why. When I combined my foods poorly I used to get certain unpleasant symptoms even if my digestion was (obviously) fine. Gcb, you once suggested that poor food combining leads to the formation of AGEs and therefore to health problems. But then the consumption, for example, of stored nuts should cause problems too because AGEs do not only form during cooking, but also during storage. Are there "good" AGEs, which don´t cause trouble even if consumed in quantity, and "bad" AGEs which cause problems even in relatively small amounts?
Hi Iguana,
At least in Switzerland, we didn’t change our habit to eat a lot of meat.
Since when have you eaten "a lot of meat"?
Could you roughly estimate how much meat you eat since then on average?
-
Yes, but there were some Masai tribes who required their men ages 15-35 to eat nothing but meat, milk, and blood.
Is it documented or is it just another of AV’s fairy tales?
I think the lack of organ meats, and overeating muscle meats, is a serious problem.
It may well be so, but on a strictly carnivorous diet it’s certainly not enough because carnivores also eat the contents of the stomach and intestines of their preys in which they find partly digested plant food.
Oh me poor brain is spinning, trying to understand all this. So if the culprit is the kind of meat rather than the taste of the meat, then it does seem pretty clear that we can't rely on our alliesthetic mechanism alone, but must also consider the kind of meat too, right, such as consciously limit our intake of beef muscle meat regardless of quality?
Yes. Didn’t GCB and I explain several times that we should be careful with domestic animals’ meat just as with modern cultivated fruits? It’s no problem if we eat once a way as much beef as we like, but obviously we shouldn’t do it everyday.
I remember at the castle watching most instinctos living there, including Nicole, eating large quantities of animal protein and also eating ( to me) large amounts of sweet fruit. That for me never has worked. Maybe it's a reduced amount of stomach acid etc... and the dilution of it by eating fruit at the same meal.. Doing so always results in less than ideal digestion, and hence undigested materials going through my colon etc. And then there's blood sugar rises with eating large quantities of meat and fruit. As I have mentioned before, I only watched one or two times people eating good portions of fat along with meat. Although eggs and sea products were also abundant
Yes, I was there several times from 1987 to 1992 and people stayed lengthily at the table for the evening meal. Usually we chose an animal food first, then some vegetables and somewhat latter fruits, preferably a single kind. As a rule, more than one or even two hours elapsed between the meat or fish and fruits, with vegetable in-between. Each meal was a feast. :D :)
GCB - thank you so much for coming and explaining things to us. I have to admit though that, like Phil, I am confused and my brain is hurting. Are you saying that even if muscle meat that is grass-fed or wild from pristine spaces smells, feels and tastes good - still - one can eat too much and it could result in cancer? Please excuse me if I'm being a bit dense. I really want to understand this. Is muscle meat not included in the basic instincto principles as I understand them?
No problem with meat of wild animals, or even with a huge amount of beef in a meal or perhaps during a whole week once in a way. The point is that we shouldn’t eat the meat of the same animal kind everyday for long periods of time. Variations are essential.
For example, if we choose to eat deer, mutton or beef one day, there’s no arbitrary limit to the amount we can eat, the limit being set instinctively for each individual at the moment. But if that individual has a choice limited to a single kind of meat (beef , mutton or even deer) for several months or years and eats it everyday, he/she’s likely going into troubles in the long run.
The ideal is to have a broad choice or one that constantly varies, so that for example we can choose instinctively to eat for proteins: wild boar on Monday, hen’s eggs on Tuesday, mackerel on Wednesday, clams on Thursday, ducks eggs on Friday, crab on Saturday, beef on Sunday and… macadamia nuts next Monday!
So they used to eat animal protein and fruit at the same meal? Habitual "bad" food combinations are possibly another important point, gcb, aren´t they? However, I don´t understand exactly why. When I combined my foods poorly I used to get certain unpleasant symptoms even if my digestion was (obviously) fine. Gcb, you once suggested that poor food combining leads to the formation of AGEs and therefore to health problems. But then the consumption, for example, of stored nuts should cause problems too because AGEs do not only form during cooking, but also during storage. Are there "good" AGEs, which don´t cause trouble even if consumed in quantity, and "bad" AGEs which cause problems even in relatively small amounts?
Yes, but it’s much better to let at least 45 minutes or one hour elapse between the meat and vegetables and then again at least 30 minutes between vegetables and fruits, so that the digestive enzymes can break apart the proteins before something else comes in. It’s even better if we can totally avoid to ingest any fruit after a meal including an animal protein stuff.
Concerning AGEs, AFAIK (GCB might correct me if I’m wrong) their production increases exponentially with the temperature. Some are formed at ambient temperature during storage, but it is in insignificant amounts, even if you store nuts for a couple of years.
Hi Iguana, Since when have you eaten "a lot of meat"?
Could you roughly estimate how much meat you eat since then on average?
Ever since I began with instinctive raw paleo nutrition, in January 1987. I eat meat with no preset limit, but not everyday, as explained above. It means that when I eat meat I can eat a lot of it, and the longest is the interval between two meals with meat, the more meat I can eat at once.
As a rough estimate, I would say 30 - 60 kg of meat per year, plus 200 – 500 eggs (when available), plus I don’t know how many kg of shellfish and fish. When I traveled or was residing in tropical places, I ate mostly fish and very little meat because local availability of suitable meats was lacking.
-
Thanks for trying to explain, Iguana, but my head is spinning even more now. I didn't realize that Instincto was this complex. Maybe it's partly a translation problem? I tried to understand it all, sorry.
-
Post deleted in agreement between global moderators because it was an insult to people practicing instinctive raw paleo nutrition.
-
Hi Iguana, :)
people stayed lengthily at the table for the evening meal. Usually we chose an animal food first, then some vegetables and somewhat latter fruits, preferably a single kind. As a rule, more than one or even two hours elapsed between the meat or fish and fruits, with vegetable in-between.
But what did they/you do during these one or two hours that elapsed between meat and fruit? Did they/you sit at table for one or two hours eating vegetable all the time?
Concerning AGEs, AFAIK (GCB might correct me if I’m wrong) their production increases exponentially with the temperature. Some are formed at ambient temperature during storage, but it is in insignificant amounts, even if you store nuts for a couple of years.
Obviously, they are formed in impressive amounts also during storage, even to the point that the nutritional value of the stored food is seriously impaired. For example,
"Panigrahi et al. [1996] tested the effects of storage (under tropical conditions) on the lysine content of maize. They found that the most severely discolored maize lost 50% of its lysine content, primarily due to Maillard reactions. Other amino acids were affected, such as arginine (37% reduction) and glycine (15%). The Maillard products also lowered digestibility by pancreatin. The consequence was that the growth rate of chicks fed (storage-damaged) maize was 10% lower than the controls. However, no other effect on the weight of the liver or pancreas of the treatment chicks was observed." (http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1b.shtml (http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1b.shtml))
-
..
The point is that we shouldn’t eat the meat of the same animal kind everyday for long periods of time.
..
So, what do you think Lex Rooker has to expect, healthwise?
For how many years he is eating nothing else than Slanker's beef now?
Löwenherz
-
Concerning AGEs, AFAIK (GCB might correct me if I’m wrong) their production increases exponentially with the temperature. Some are formed at ambient temperature during storage, but it is in insignificant amounts, even if you store nuts for a couple of years.
Don't forget that fructose causes the formation of massive amounts of endogenous AGEs in our bodies. The temperature is always the same...
Löwenherz
-
Quote deleted in agreement between global moderators because it was an insult to people practicing instinctive raw paleo nutrition.
That is actually an understatement.
The scenes I have seen at "Montramé" could be called Absurdistan, in every aspect (dietary, mentally and socially).
Löwenherz
-
Is it documented or is it just another of AV’s fairy tales?
I believe this passage from Dr. Price's book will be useful:
"...A marked variation of the incidence of irregularities was found in the different tribes. This variation could be directly associated with the nutrition rather than with the tribal pattern. The lowest percentage of irregularity occurred in the tribes living very largely on dairy products and marine life. For example, among the Masai living on milk, blood and meat, only 3.4 per cent had irregularities. Among the Kikuyu and Wakamba, 18.2 and 18.9 per cent respectively had irregularities. These people were largely agriculturists living primarily on vegetable foods..."
I couldn't find direct mention of that rule about Masai men's diets, but I think this passage is a pretty useful one. The fact is, excess carbs, particularly fruit, are often very hard on the teeth. I'm not saying that eating muscle meat is the answer. However, I think that most instinctos eat too much fruit, and not enough fat. They probably overeat animal protein too, since fat is so good at satisfying appetite, and, without it, it's easy to overeat.
-
So, what do you think Lex Rooker has to expect, healthwise?
For how many years he is eating nothing else than Slanker's beef now?
Löwenherz
I've eaten the worse foods for all my life and haven't noticed anything negative. That doesn't mean it isn't happening.
-
Thanks for trying to explain, Iguana, but my head is spinning even more now. I didn't realize that Instincto was this complex. Maybe it's partly a translation problem? I tried to understand it all, sorry.
What is so complex? Variety? It’s much simpler than cooking. We spend much less time preparing the dishes (just about no time at all!) or washing the pots, frying pans and plates. Neither hot water nor detergents are needed, no dishwasher neither.
Hi Iguana, :) But what did they/you do during these one or two hours that elapsed between meat and fruit? Did they/you sit at table for one or two hours eating vegetable all the time?
It was just like it’s customary in France to spend time in a good restaurant, eating slowly, talking together - and in this case also looking and smelling at the various foodstuff to choose one.
Obviously, they are formed in impressive amounts also during storage, even to the point that the nutritional value of the stored food is seriously impaired. For example,
"Panigrahi et al. [1996] tested the effects of storage (under tropical conditions) on the lysine content of maize. They found that the most severely discolored maize lost 50% of its lysine content, primarily due to Maillard reactions. Other amino acids were affected, such as arginine (37% reduction) and glycine (15%). The Maillard products also lowered digestibility by pancreatin. The consequence was that the growth rate of chicks fed (storage-damaged) maize was 10% lower than the controls. However, no other effect on the weight of the liver or pancreas of the treatment chicks was observed." (http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1b.shtml (http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1b.shtml))
I’m not an expert on this, but obviously some food (maize in your example) get storage-damaged much quicker than nuts. I’m not speaking about storage-damaged nuts.
Don't forget that fructose causes the formation of massive amounts of endogenous AGEs in our bodies. The temperature is always the same...
Any reference?
That is actually an understatement.
The scenes I have seen at "Montramé" could be called Absurdistan, in every aspect (dietary, mentally and socially).
We’ve got to take into account the fact that unusual ways always attract some weird and crazy folks. How long did you stay there?
-
Don't forget that fructose causes the formation of massive amounts of endogenous AGEs in our bodies.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/what-level-of-fructosesugarfruit-consumption-is-safe/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/what-level-of-fructosesugarfruit-consumption-is-safe/)
According to these data, up to 90 g fructose per day or at the very least up to 50 g fructose per day are not only harmless, but even beneficial.
I’m not an expert on this, but obviously some food (maize in your example) get storage-damaged much quicker than nuts.
Why?
-
I like GCB's past use of headings, so I'm going to steal his format--thanks GCB:
To Iguana:
What is so complex? Variety? It’s much simpler than cooking. We spend much less time preparing the dishes (just about no time at all!) or washing the pots, frying pans and plates. Neither hot water nor detergents are needed, no dishwasher neither.
If variety were all that you and GCB discussed, it might be simple, but you two discussed more than that in this thread and still more in others. It seems that another layer of complexity is added with each discussion. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising, as nature is infinitely complex, but it's difficult to get a good grasp of it all. I do hope you can forgive me for having difficulty understanding it all and seeing how it all fits together without creating seeming contradictions. I think I'll try to digest it for now and maybe ask more questions in the future after I've read GCB's paper that you linked to. I did skim it and noticed this excerpt which may prove rather controversial here and that I think was touched on in this thread and another, IIRC:
A question remains: why meat does figure the common denominator of almost all the tumors that we observed? I see two reasons: the mammalian proteins are closer to ours than any other. ....
--G.C. Burger
LIGHT ON CANCER
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM62-cancer.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM62-cancer.html)
As a matter of fact, I checked again the other thread and see that you mentioned the complexity and seeming contradictory nature yourself:
At first glance it may seem contradictory with what he explained above, but it's not really so. The nature is extremely complex and cannot be accurately accounted for by simplistic binary descriptions. So, I think both of you Hanna and Tyler are right even if your points of view seem opposed.
To Löwenherz:
Don't forget that fructose causes the formation of massive amounts of endogenous AGEs in our bodies. The temperature is always the same...
What's your take on Chris Masterjohn's article in which he says his analysis of the research indicates that neither PUFAs nor fructose are a major source of AGEs--quite the surprise given as these are two of the three factors commonly described as Neolithic Agents of Disease and are commonly cited as culprits in discussions of AGEs:
peroxidation of PUFAs is very unlikely to be a major source of AGEs. ....
Much to my consternation I have failed to find any evidence that fructose increases glycation in vivo, despite knowing of this argument for a decade or so. As I stated in the article, direct glycation by sugars is not a major pathway for glycation, and this applies to fructose as well as glucose.
--Chris Masterjohn
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o.html (http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/10/where-do-most-ages-come-from-o.html)
Do you have good counter-evidence?
Chris hinted that AGEs and precursors like methylglyoxal may not be problems in and of themselves, but only in certain contexts, and that they may even serve a useful function as "key signaling molecules":
AGEs and their dicarbonyl precursors may emerge as key signaling molecules, but that in many situations they do indeed cause harm.
Yes, I know, that's heresy here. I'll reserve comment on that till at least after his next post in the series. It will be interesting to see what it says. I do like the way he's trying to look at the whole picture instead of just a reductionist look at AGEs in isolation.
-
Post deleted in accord between global moderators because it contained insults to one of our members. Paleo Donk is kindly invited not to post here again.
-
According to these data, up to 90 g fructose per day or at the very least up to 50 g fructose per day are not only harmless, but even beneficial.
That report was not about endogenous AGE formation.
Anyway, I don't think that small amounts of fruits are really dangerous. But I have no doubt that long-term consumption of high amounts is disastrous. Unfortunately the damage needs some years to become visible.
So, if you want to eat fruits because you "love" fruits, you will certainly find as many confirmations, studies, "experts" and appeasements as you desire.
From my own experience I can only tell you that high-fruit consumption for many years was the biggest mistake of my life, regarding physical and social conditions.
Löwenherz
-
To Löwenherz:
I won’t discus any longer about impressions and conjectures. It suffice to look at the actual results of the experiment: I have almost fifty years of experience on my own body, there are many who practice the instincto correctly for twenty, thirty or forty years and have no problems. Cancers appeared in small numbers and have always been linked to excessive consumption of domestic animals’ meat. All instinctos born children are in an excellent state of health and some are now healthy adults. Wait for an equivalent experience duration before judging and we'll see. All the rest is verbiage more or less disguised as scientific beliefs.
To Hanna:
The AGEs are not the devil himself and those produced below 40° C (to which we are genetically adapted because they are common classes of molecules and are present in small amounts only) should be distinguished from those produced by heat, rare in nature and present in very large concentrations in cooked food. The fear of AGEs produced at low temperature originated from the hypothesis that diabetics suffered from autoimmune degenerations because of AGEs that would have been produced in their bodies due to a higher glucose rate, an assumption that proved false once it has been shown that these levels of circulating AGEs correlate to intake of cooked food.
Another concern is that if we put together in the stomach a lot of different products that are never mixed in the nature, we can still certainly get molecular combinations (others than AGEs as well) difficult to treat by our digestive enzymes, especially when under overloaded. But in principle the instinct prevents overloads and minimizes these problems. Enzymes work very fast indeed when there is no overload, and only the instinct is able to indicate the right quantities.
-
Thank you Iguana for your response. I think I'm understanding better.
This and other recent conversations have brought up a big concern for me though.
All I have been able to find so far has been domesticated and frozen grass-fed meat including marrow, suet, organs etc. What I've learned is that here in Texas (which is big cattle country) there are these big processing plants where everyone brings their animals to for slaughter because it's legally much safer and infinitely much easier. Because it can get so darn hot here the only "safe" way (according to the FDA) to transport meat is to freeze it. No farmer I have spoken to wants to put themselves on the line and I don't blame them a bit. There is a war against small and grass-fed farmers going on. None of the plants are close to my home in the city. I do not hunt and do not know any hunters.
In another post Iguana you said to do it right or not do it at all and doing it right seems to mean eating fresh muscle meat and other animal parts that haven't been frozen and GCB is seeming to say only to eat wild, non-domesticated animals. I also don't have much of any variety available to me.
At least for now, I am not able to eat that way and more importantly, provide that for my husband who seems to need more meat (I need barely any at all). What to do? Give up meat? Go Neolithic? What does it mean if you can't do it right to not do it all? What do you suggest for the people that are not able to follow the necessary baselines?
-
What to do? Give up meat? Go Neolithic? What does it mean if you can't do it right to not do it all? What do you suggest for the people that are not able to follow the necessary baselines?
That is one of my often exceedingly perfectionist’s views! Of course, you have to eat and if you can’t eat 100% right, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eat at all… Try to do the best you can. Can’t you find clams and other RAF in your place? Don’t give up meat, but avoid to eat the same meat everyday during several months or years. It’s probably not a problem if you eat raw beef in a reasonable amount one or twice a week or a huge amount once in way.
And, most important, don’t believe what I say: I m’ very far from knowing everything! ;)
Didn’t GCB and I explain several times that we should be careful with domestic animals’ meat just as with modern cultivated fruits? It’s no problem if we eat once a way as much beef as we like, but obviously we shouldn’t do it everyday.
(…)
No problem with meat of wild animals, or even with a huge amount of beef in a meal or perhaps during a whole week once in a way. The point is that we shouldn’t eat the meat of the same animal kind everyday for long periods of time. Variations are essential.
From my own experience I can only tell you that high-fruit consumption for many years was the biggest mistake of my life, regarding physical and social conditions.
Of course, too much of anything - even water (see http://www.dhmo.org/ (http://www.dhmo.org/) ;) ;D ) - is noxious and can even be deadly!
-
Dorothy, seeking perfection is a bad idea. After a certain point, the benefits become too small to matter. So stick to prefrozen, grassfed meat for now, that's fine.
-
That is one of my often exceedingly perfectionist’s views! Of course, you have to eat and if you can’t eat 100% right, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eat at all… Try to do the best you can. Can’t you find clams and other RAF in your place? Don’t give up meat, but avoid to eat the same meat everyday during several months or years. It’s probably not a problem if you eat raw beef in a reasonable amount one or twice a week or a huge amount once in way.
And, most important, don’t believe what I say: I m’ very far from knowing everything! ;)
Of course, too much of anything - even water (see http://www.dhmo.org/ (http://www.dhmo.org/) ;) ;D ) - is noxious and can even be deadly!
Oh I am so very relieved my instincto friend Iguana is not throwing me out of the paleo era into the scary neolithic or modern era (shudder) and I am especially relieved that the Instincto tribe isn't going to shun me! :) Whew.
Room for flexibility but....be careful Iguana... I take everything you say seriously even if you don't mean to be serious - so I might start not to believe you if you tell me not to! ;D
Seriously though, that's really good advice that I will take to heart. In the spring we will be able to get lamb to switch off to and maybe some buffalo and we don't eat anything more than a couple of times a week. All the fish is frozen too. Clams my husband despises :( Good try though. :) I can appreciate the admonition for variety and that we might have to work at getting our palettes adjusted to be even able to appreciate (be attracted to) some foods. Little by little, step by step.
If he would only eat bugs like the chickens life would be so much easier! hee hee.
-
Thank you, gcb, for your answer!
That report was not about endogenous AGE formation.
The data were, among others, about glycated hemoglobin, which is an early glycation endproduct.
From my own experience I can only tell you that high-fruit consumption for many years was the biggest mistake of my life, regarding physical and social conditions.
Social conditions? Why social conditions?
-
GCB is wrong as regards the issue of AGEs in raw foods. It's been shown, via tables, that AGEs in chickens fed on very unhealthy, grainfed diets are very high, not all that different from the boiled version therefrom. Granted, AGEs in nature are available in microscopic amounts even in the healthiest foods, and the human body can indeed deal with such tiny amounts, but I seriously doubt that it can deal with the AGEs present in foods from animals fed on very unhealthy, unnatural diets.
-
The AGEs are not the devil himself and those produced below 40° C (to which we are genetically adapted because they are common classes of molecules and are present in small amounts only)
Interesting and refreshingly candid comment; sometimes around here it does seem like AGEs are made out to be the devil himself.
-
GCB is wrong as regards the issue of AGEs in raw foods. It's been shown, via tables, that AGEs in chickens fed on very unhealthy, grainfed diets are very high, not all that different from the boiled version there from. Granted, AGEs in nature are available in microscopic amounts even in the healthiest foods, and the human body can indeed deal with such tiny amounts, but I seriously doubt that it can deal with the AGEs present in foods from animals fed on very unhealthy, unnatural diets.
Yes, of course, it can’t! Don’t you think that the AGEs present in animals fed cooked or heated food are the same as the AGEs present in their food, which have accumulated in their tissues?
GCB was obviously not talking about raw meats from animals fed cooked food and wheat, as for him it is absolutely out of the question to eat such meats which are highly concentrates of the toxins, including AGEs, brought by their food.
-
Apropos animals fed heated food. Gcb, I have a question on this subject. Since I have eaten strictly rawfood for more than half a year, I have had strong reactions to any cooked food. Even when I tried to eat cold smoked food several weeks ago, I had the same symptoms that I had after eating cooked food, although much weaker. However, whenever I ate the meat of farmed animals (salmon, pork, prawns) I never had comparable symptoms. I don´t understand that. If the meat of farmed animals contains concentrated toxins including AGEs, why don´t I react to their meat in the same way I used to react to cooked food?
-
Post deleted in accord between global moderators because it contained insults to one of our members. Paleo Donk is kindly invited not to post here again.
Could a moderator PM me and let me know why this post was deleted?
-
Apropos animals fed heated food. Gcb, I have a question on this subject. Since I have eaten strictly rawfood for more than half a year, I have had strong reactions to any cooked food. Even when I tried to eat cold smoked food several weeks ago, I had the same symptoms that I had after eating cooked food, although much weaker. However, whenever I ate the meat of farmed animals (salmon, pork, prawns) I never had comparable symptoms. I don´t understand that. If the meat of farmed animals contains concentrated toxins including AGEs, why don´t I react to their meat in the same way I used to react to cooked food?
Serious answer to this question may require a decade of research in immunology... The immunological reactions are extremely complex, packed with interactions, cross-reactions, inhibitions, sensitizations, etc.
However, your observation seems surprising. I recently had (accidentally) an experience with a farmed fish: a bar that I was assured it had been caught in the Atlantic. So I thought I was safe (excellent in terms of objectivity!), but next day I noticed effects on my nervous system, which I didn’t initially know how to explain: insomnia, disordered dreams, agitation, myoclonus of the facial muscles (small spasmodic contractions), diminished ability to concentrate and decreased appetite. It took me a while to blame that fish, because I was sure of its source, but further investigation revealed that the fishmonger had thought I was talking about the mackerel which was right next on the stall and is actually fished. I also had some small red spots on the thighs in the following days and some body odor (usually non-existent after a sufficient period of instincto).
So I am surprised that you haven’t noticed any symptoms. However, I did not myself observe any manifestation of immune type (except for small eruptions). There probably was some, but not violent enough to appear clinically. Immune work that can occur in the animals themselves must also be considered, perhaps because the denatured molecules are stored in modified forms. And last, it is possible that after a few months of instincto, you were not yet out of tolerance for the molecules in question. The post-culinary detoxification takes years, about as long as the intoxination lasted, so we need more patience to draw definitive conclusions...
Merry Christmas to all!
-
Thank you, gcb, for your reply and a happy new year to all! I noticed symptoms, such as more sweating after eating organic salmon, but they are not exactly the same symptoms (most notably, I never had pain symptoms after eating farmed fish, farmed prawns or farmed meat, but I always had pain symptoms after eating cooked food) and the symptoms are not as strong and not as reliable as the symptoms I had after eating cooked food.
Sorry for the late reply; I had no private internet access for a time.
-
Hanna, I have the same kinds of reactions as you. Whether something is cooked or not makes more of a difference than how it was raised/grown.... usually.... unless it was raised/grown REALLY badly. Eating a kind of food no matter how it was raised/grown that is not appropriate for me at the moment is much more detrimental than even if it is cooked or not. I would put the order of importance as 1. Appropriate/needed atm 2. Raw 3. Farming method.
This makes me think about the holistic veterinarian that helped me to transfer my dogs to a raw diet. He told me that the studies that were done showed that there was dramatically more positive impact from a raw diet with only small gains incorporating grass-fed, organic and the like. He told me that the one most important thing I can do for the health of my pets was get them on raw food and then think about the kind of raw food later when I had the resources and time. This made sense to me with my own experiences with raw vs cooked foods - albeit it was all fruits and vegetables for me back then. It's now the same for me with animal foods.
-
Dorothy, I think a great deal also has to do with HOW cooked something is. Lightly steamed is pretty much the same as raw. Deep-fried, heavily grilled, etc. are definitely NOT.
-
So true Cherimoya! What you said made me realize something. I don't consider deep fried food as food any more - nor do I consider what usually pass for deserts or make-believe concoctions in boxes wrapped in plastic that they sell in supermarkets where I don't even know what most of the ingredients mean to be food either - so I kinda forget about those kinds of things that some people eat when talking about food. If I eat any of those I think of them more like doing drugs or like drinking alcohol with others as a socially accepted but damaging past-time. Those things give me nothing and take a lot and I will have to get over them. They are not something that nourish me - they deplete me. It's funny that I didn't even realize that I no longer categorize as food what most people do.
Yes, the non-food that many people still think of as food is worse than anything. When I talk about cooking I refer to "normally - healthful" cooked natural whole foods.
Thanks.
-
Lightly steamed is pretty much the same as raw.
Will you provide research for this statement? Thanks.
-
Even slight heating will destroy most enzymes and some bacteria. Plus it will create some heat-created toxins, too. Not as much as with full boiling or frying etc., but still bad.
-
Will you provide research for this statement? Thanks.
The higher the heat, the worse it is. Temperatures up to 118 F have been recorded inside the human body, so I imagine anything up to that temperature is not extremely damaging, at least not to meat/fish. Fruit, and especially honey, are going to have some damage, mainly honey.
When I say lightly steamed, I really mean that the inside of the food is only raised to around 105 F or so. The outside can be a little warmer, with relatively little damage.
-
According to the following quote, it seems we can "warm up" raw food in the dehydrator (which produces dry heat) up to 149 degrees without doing damage to food enzymes (and other food properties) ? Will someone verify this based on science?
"Enzyme research has revealed the importance of raw foods in the diet. The enzymes in raw food help start the process of digestion and reduce the body's need to produce digestive enzymes. All enzymes are deactivated at a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit, and a dry-heat temperature of about 150 degrees. It is one of those happy designs of nature that foods and liquid at 117 degrees can be touched without pain, but liquids over 118 degrees will burn. Thus we have a built-in mechanism for determining whether or not the food we are eating still contains its enzyme content."
http://www.realmilk.com/enzyme.html (http://www.realmilk.com/enzyme.html)
It seems to make sense to me that there is a difference between dry heat and liquid heat. For instance, in a sauna, the dry heat is very high (definitely above 118 degrees) but the human users of sauna are not damaged/cooked up (up to a certain temperature).
-
The higher the heat, the worse it is.
Not necessarily. A slightly damaged molecule is unlikely to be immediately recognized as such by the immune system, while a completely wrecked one would be discarded straight away. Thus the first one could induce a lot more troubles in the metabolism.
This seem to be confirmed by the experiment on mice done by GCB & al in the 60’s (http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5934) :
Les conclusions générales de cette expérience sont les suivantes :
a/ Le groupe le plus catastrophique est le groupe "diététique". Avec
des dénaturations supposées minimes, cette alimentation se veut
pourtant « hypotoxique » (= faiblement toxique). Elle comprend
notamment du blé bio cuit à des températures inférieures à 100°. Des
lots de souris sont alimentés avec du blé et autres aliments "bio"
chauffés à 50°, d'autres avec des aliments chauffés à 60°, d'autres à
70° et ainsi de suite. Certaines souris deviennent très maigres,
tandis que d'autres grossissent énormément. Les souris se mangent
entre elles ou meurent prématurément, d'elles-mêmes. Il n'y a pas
besoin de les tuer pour la dissection.
b/ Les cages cuites :
Curieusement les résultats sont moins mauvais qu'avec des
dénaturations « douces ». Les souris sont nourries avec des patates
cuites, de la viande cuite, du pain… Elles se mangent aussi entre
elles. Mais ce qu'il faut retenir c'est qu'il y a globalement une
amélioration par rapport à l'alimentation diététique.
Rough translation:
The general conclusions from this experiment are:
a / The most catastrophic group is the group "healthy diet". With assumed minimal processing, this diet aims to be "hypotoxic" (= only slightly toxic). It includes organic wheat cooked at temperatures below 100 ° C. Some mice groups were fed with wheat and other "organic" foods heated to 50 °, other groups with food heated to 60 ° C, other groups with food heated 70 ° C and so on. Some mice become very skinny, while others grow enormously obese. The mice eat each others or die prematurely, spontaneously. There is no need to kill them for dissection.
b / Cages cooked:
Curiously the results are less bad than with "light" cooking. Mice were cooked fed potatoes , cooked meat, bread... They also eat each other. But what we must remember is that there is an overall improvement from the “healthy diet”.
Temperatures up to 118 F have been recorded inside the human body, so I imagine anything up to that temperature is not extremely damaging, at least not to meat/fish. Fruit, and especially honey, are going have some damage, mainly honey.
That is 48° C. I don’t know from where you got this number but let’s admit it’s true. Ok, wide scale damage to organic molecules start probably a little over that; according to an oral report I heard, the calf fed with milk heated at 55° C are faring very badly, being sick and unable to reach a normal adult state.
By limiting our intakes to food not heated over 40° C, we hopefully have a slight safety margin.
When I say lightly steamed, I really mean that the inside of the food is only raised to around 105 F or so. The outside can be a little warmer, with relatively little damage.
41° C inside… but this “little damage” of the outside is precisely what should be avoided. Completely carbonize your food would certainly be less hazardous since pure carbon has extremely low toxicity to humans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Precautions)
-
I'm afraid that the above claims re 118F are incorrect. According to this:-
http://www.blurtit.com/q616156.html (http://www.blurtit.com/q616156.html)
"If you are referring to the internal temperature of the human body, studies show most bodies can only survive up to 108 degrees Fahrenheit, or 42 degrees Celcius, as the proteins inside the body begin to die at around 105F.
"
AV believes that enzymes in raw honey get destroyed at much lower temperatures(not sure re this myself). But I would imagine that since enzymes are proteins, anything above 105F would get damaged and many enzymes above 108F would be destroyed or at least denatured.
-
Yes, thanks Tyler!
It seems to make sense to me that there is a difference between dry heat and liquid heat. For instance, in a sauna, the dry heat is very high (definitely above 118 degrees) but the human users of sauna are not damaged/cooked up (up to a certain temperature).
We can stand air temperatures of 50 – 55° C (not uncommon in Kuwait or in the Death Valley) for a few days provided we have enough fluid to drink. It doesn’t mean that our body temperature goes that high – as long as we are still alive!
But we would not survive long in a bath at 55° C. See the difference between conduction and convection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Conduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Conduction)
-
For me, regarding the cooking (thoroughly, medium or light) of meat, whether a study says it is healthy, or not, is a moot point. Likewise, whether enzymes are more or less alive.
The cooking changes the meat. When it is not cooked, and is suitable 'wild' meat, there is a natural stop when one has had enough, and also its raw 'wildness' has its inherent smell attraction. (or not, depending on physiological needs)
As soon as a meat is cooked 'wildness' is lost and it becomes more a product of cooking preference as per gustatory and culturally learned sensualities, rather than direct sensory instinct.
For what its worth.
-
I'm afraid that the above claims re 118F are incorrect. According to this:-
http://www.blurtit.com/q616156.html (http://www.blurtit.com/q616156.html)
"If you are referring to the internal temperature of the human body, studies show most bodies can only survive up to 108 degrees Fahrenheit, or 42 degrees Celcius, as the proteins inside the body begin to die at around 105F.
"
AV believes that enzymes in raw honey get destroyed at much lower temperatures(not sure re this myself). But I would imagine that since enzymes are proteins, anything above 105F would get damaged and many enzymes above 108F would be destroyed or at least denatured.
Medical reports of people who have died after consuming the drug Ecstasy have confirmed internal body temps post-mortem of at least 109 F, and that's after several hours of cooling.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1891/does-an-ecstasy-overdose-raise-your-body-temperature-to-108-degrees (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1891/does-an-ecstasy-overdose-raise-your-body-temperature-to-108-degrees)
Scroll down, it's a long article.
So I was off by a couple of degrees, yes. However, I'd say that common sense would tell you that if a body can produce heat of 115 F, then "cooking" meat at that temp is probably not going to be all that damaging.
To Iguana--GCB's theory about low-temp cooked food being worse that heavily-cooked food is highly suspect. Not that I don't think he's a tremendous pioneer in the area of diet but I just don't buy that theory.
I really find it hard to believe that people would be healthier eating food roasted in at oven at 400 F for 3 hours, than if the food were lightly steamed for about 5 minutes.
Call me crazy, but it just seems obvious.
-
The whole point was that heating the body past 108F was an irreversible decline, with enzymes destroyed/denatured past that point etc.. The fact that some hours of cooling made things better in quite other aspects, is irrelevant.
-
To Iguana--GCB's theory about low-temp cooked food being worse that heavily-cooked food is highly suspect. Not that I don't think he's a tremendous pioneer in the area of diet but I just don't buy that theory.
I really find it hard to believe that people would be healthier eating food roasted in at oven at 400 F for 3 hours, than if the food were lightly steamed for about 5 minutes.
Call me crazy, but it just seems obvious.
I think this issue is very complex. First we should distinguish between nutritional value and toxicity. Pure carbon has a very low toxicity but no nutritional value; some cooked stuffs contain a lot of valuable nutrients, but also heat-induced toxins. You can live on lightly cooked food, but not on carbonized stuff.
As all the files containing the meticulously collected data of the experiment I quoted have been lost, it should be done again to be better able to separate the variables. BTW, it’s incredible that the scientific community does not undertake such quite simple experiments.
Anyway, what can be inferred is that there’s neither linearity nor direct correlation between cooking temperature and food toxicity. Common sense is often misleading: for example, it goes against the theory of special relativity, was used against the heliocentric theory and the idea the Earth isn’t flat but spherical “because the things and people on the other side would stand upside-down”. ;)
-
I still don't buy it. No way is steamed worse than oven-roasted. I mean, lightly-steamed food is still absolutely 100% raw, by any standard, on the inside. Oven-roasted is not.
-
I still don't buy it. No way is steamed worse than oven-roasted. I mean, lightly-steamed food is still absolutely 100% raw, by any standard, on the inside. Oven-roasted is not.
At what temperature will steam be produced? Steam cannot be produced at 118 degree F...not even at 150 degree F.
-
At what temperature will steam be produced? Steam cannot be produced at 118 degree F...not even at 150 degree F.
Steam is produced at around 212 F. The temperature of the steam is less than that, because the air around it cools it off.
-
I mean, lightly-steamed food is still absolutely 100% raw, by any standard, on the inside.
Then it's ok if you eat the inside only ! ;)
-
With steaming you lose the good bacteria on the outside.
But for the ones still adjusting to the taste of raw meat, it may have to be done for them to eat.