Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: TylerDurden on June 21, 2010, 08:17:37 pm
-
OK, since GS determined that extreme anti-Instincto posts, such as in recent times, should not be placed in the Instincto forum and put elsewhere, here are the deleted posts, intended for the hot topics forum as it's a controversial topic:-
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #99 on: Today at 01:00:44 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote from: GCB on Yesterday at 11:39:12 AM
. It is undoubtedly for this reason that the emergent function ensuring nutritional regulation includes a large intrinsic part: the animal limits itself spontaneously with every natural product, because there are frequent situations where the natural products are available in amounts sufficient to endanger its physiological balance and temporary capacity to flee or respond to a predator’s attack. This intrinsic part of the regulation appears by various alliesthesic mechanisms (sense of smell, taste, repletion, dislike, etc): it is precisely what I call the alimentary instinct.
It’s in my turn to ask you a question: are there during the year, in the Philippines, periods without wild fruit? Let us point out for Alphagruis that the existence of such periods does not exclude at all the utility – neither in terms of survival capacity and evolution nor in terms of emergent functions – of regulation mechanisms ensuring nutritional balance during each specific fruit season.
It is true that this thread is named “Explain Instincto Diet Fully”, and that the object should be to explain how and why it functions. But how do want you to calm the detractors who cannot stand Angry the idea that an alimentary instinct does exist?
Very funny.
The guru now tries to wrap his cr*p about his supposed "alimentary instinct that results in perfectly balanced diet" into (unfortunately misunderstood) complex systems science language since I told him about it, rather than the old fashioned (also misunderstood) neodarwinist terms in his former version.
The trouble is that the concepts of instinct and emergence are just mutually exclusive Cheesy
This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.
Report to moderator Logged
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #99 on: Today at 01:34:58 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote from: Paleo Donk on Yesterday at 01:17:54 PM
Perhaps the thread has run its course where we can all take something from it. I think alphagruis' "falsifies instincto" comes across as too strong as you only need one minor point of contention to technically falsify one's way of eating.
Unfortunately there are many many "points" (not minor at all and some of them I dicussed formerly in French speaking forums) that also clearly falsify the instincto dogma, Paleo Donk.
The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.
Just look at the number of people who still claim to be "instinctos". There are presently probably not more than a few tens of them, worldwide. After more than 40 years since Burger invented it....
« Last Edit: Today at 01:42:01 AM by alphagruis »
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #101 on: Today at 05:56:40 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote from: alphagruis on Today at 01:00:44 AM
Very funny.(…)
This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.
Well, we’d like to share the screaming laughter of your illustrious colleagues, but of course I understand very well that it would involve so advanced, extremely long and intricate explanations that we, common mortals, will never be able to follow it.
Quote from: alphagruis on Today at 01:34:58 AM
The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.
Sure… especially for the vast majority of instinctos, who eat large portions of meat, oysters, fish or eggs everyday, or almost everyday !
Here are the words Alphagruis wrote on April 17, 2007:
Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5553
Quote
Merci François, je suis heureux que tu perçoives mes critiques comme
constructives et j'espère que GCB les percevra ainsi. Mais même si sa
réaction devait être plus "agacée" je comprendrais très bien et cela
n'enlèverais rien à l'estime, l'admiration et la reconnaissance que j'ai
pour lui. Je n'oublie pas qu'il m'a donné les moyens de me débarrasser
définitivement de mes fichus calculs rénaux récidivants en quelques mois
grâce à son instinctothérapie, alors que les sommités infatuées,
prétentieuses, bornées et ignares de l'institution médicale me menaient
joyeusement en bateau depuis 10 ans.
It’s well worth a translation :
Quote
Thank you Francois, I am glad that you perceive my critiques as constructive and I hope that GCB will perceive them as such. But even if his reaction were to be more irritated I will understand very well and that would not remove in any way the respect, admiration and thankfulness I have for him. I do not forget he provided me the means of getting definitively rid of my damned recurrent renal calculus in a few months thanks to his instinctotherapy, whereas the ignoramus full of themselves, pretentious and narrow-minded of the medical institution had been taking me for a ride during 10 years.
No comment. Grin
Francois"
While this is an anti-Instincto thread, please could all avoid the personal attacks from now on and stick to the science.
-
The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.
Sure… especially for the vast majority of instinctos, who eat large portions of meat, oysters, fish or eggs everyday, or almost everyday !
I've just been on raw paleo diet for 2.5 years and I'm steadily gravitating towards a majority raw meat diet lately.
Can you explain this bit of wisdom with us new-comers?
What happens when we eat a majority raw animal food diet almost everyday?
-
GS, it appears to me that only the first two sentences in your quote were mine.
The following one
Sure… especially for the vast majority of instinctos, who eat large portions of meat, oysters, fish or eggs everyday, or almost everyday !
is not mine and so there is probably a misunderstanding and I can't ansver your questions because I don't understand what you mean actually.
PS. Not all of my posts deleted in the pro-instincto thread seem to have been copied here and, well, whatever happened what appears is hardly understandable. I'm very busy presently but I propose to rewrite some of them in future in order to make things a bit clearer.
-
Here's a brief review that summarizes my (balanced :)) opinion about Burger's work
As to the instincto movement, it’s likely that Burger, which is a well educated man (musician, physics, mathematics etc), was more or less influenced by Rousseau. It is interesting to note that Burger is initially actually a Swiss citizen from Lausanne, a city located in the French speaking Protestant « Canton de Vaux » to which Geneva, where Rousseau is born, belongs too.
What is most remarkable with Guy-Claude Burger and his instinctotherapy is that it very clearly and unambiguously pointed out already about 40 years ago the RAW PALEO concept :
-raw : As a physicist Burger clearly understood that cooking generates potentially a lot of toxins in the form of damaged or reacted biomolecules and so cleverly proposed to see what happened if one completely abandons this ubiquitous practice. Recent scientific work nicely confirms the generation of these toxins 30 years later or so.
-paleo : Based on neodarwinist arguments he also strongly questioned the adaptation of modern man to neolithic foods and proposed to abandon them completely and to see what happened if doing so. Again there is now clear cut support of these ideas from mainstream science.
Burger demonstrated that it is indeed possible to eat along these lines with numerous positive effects on health. When he did this it was not even obvious if homo sapiens was able to survive on a 100% raw diet !
Again he did this about 40 years ago and I consider that this is an outstanding most remarkable feat.
Burger also pointed out the importance of alliesthesy, i.e. olfactory and gustatory sensations in food intake regulation as described here :
http://www.rawtimes.com/anopsy1.html
Yet he went so far as to claim that there exists an « alimentary instinct » based on these sensations that is by itself capable to ensure essentially perfect nutritional balance. This is unfortunately utterly wrong and from a scientific point of view a statement like the following one taken from above link can be readily falsified.
quote from Burger
17. Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.
end of quote
In other words it is unfortunately not enough to comply with olfactory and gustatory pleasures to determine which food is best for us and ensure nutritional balance and health.
Most people who tried to do so just ate usually far too much sweet or oily fruits and not enough food of animal origin. This results in health damage after a while quite similar to the one observed in vegans.( I have recalled the main arguments against Burger's instincts on a French speaking forum recently http://paleocru.webatu.com/forum/)
This part of Burger's work about « instincts » is thus just pseudoscience and unfortunately means that he is indeed a dangerous guru. A guru recently released from jail after 12 years for pedophily, a guru who even applies his pseudoscience about "instincts" to human sexuality....
I add that by "guru" I just mean the leader of a movement or ideology who has been clearly shown to be wrong in some of his statements and often is quite aware of it but nevertheless still stubornly claims he is right and thus misleads his followers.
-
(http://honewatson.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/thumbs/2005/09/ogarthur-art-de-vany/arthur-art-de-vany410ok.jpg)
no dairy/no grain/ eats cooked food so has terrible instincts on what to eat / pushes to do things that are natural even when he does not want to resulting in unwanted muscle and strength and large appetite for unnatural quantities.
(http://pagesperso-orange.fr/joyeux-bio/images/burger.jpg)
no dairy/ no grain/ eat on instinct only/ eat things that chimps would eat plus some big game meats because they are less icky than bugs. all you need is 1/500th their body weight and only eat parts that are tasty as they are the most nutritious. Leave the brain, take the canoli. You can toss the remainder because you can always get more at the store.
always obey instinct even when animals will eat both artificial and natural garbage (nutritionally speaking) because they care less about optimal nutrition and have inferior instincts than the human that can only be experienced by the true believer.
-
Here is what Burger tells us now (still nonsense):
It is undoubtedly for this reason that the emergent function ensuring nutritional regulation includes a large intrinsic part: the animal limits itself spontaneously with every natural product, because there are frequent situations where the natural products are available in amounts sufficient to endanger its physiological balance and temporary capacity to flee or respond to a predator’s attack. This intrinsic part of the regulation appears by various alliesthesic mechanisms (sense of smell, taste, repletion, dislike, etc): it is precisely what I call the alimentary instinct
to be compared to what he "teached" up to now to the instinctos:
Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.
Just mutually exclusive ;D
Very funny.
By the way, the guru now tries to wrap his crap about his supposed "alimentary instinct that results in perfectly balanced diet" into (unfortunately misunderstood) complex systems science language since I told him about it, rather than the old fashioned (also misunderstood) neodarwinist terms in his former version.
The trouble is that the concepts of instinct and emergence are mutually exclusive too.
This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.
-
From Paleo Donk
Perhaps the thread has run its course where we can all take something from it. I think alphagruis' "falsifies instincto" comes across as too strong as you only need one minor point of contention to technically falsify one's way of eating.
Unfortunately there are many many "points" (not minor at all and some of them I dicussed formerly in French speaking forums) that also clearly falsify the instincto dogma, Paleo Donk.
The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.
Just look at the number of people who still claim to be "instinctos". There are presently probably not more than a few tens of them, worldwide. After more than 40 years since Burger invented it....
-
How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths?
It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.
I think it is ridiculous though the way it is advocated, especially in someones modern home. Necessarily it must take place outside in the wild, most likely the tropics in a tribal setting with very few tools and no permanent dwellings and so on. The fact that instinctos are glossing over the very basic premise to their own diet and not accepting this fact is depressing and very hard to take them seriously. I do appreciate their arguments as again I always learn something from someone who has a vastly different approach to nutrition or any other science for that matter.
-
The Art DeVany picture is exactly what I meant when I said that photos can't be trusted. It is simply too good to be true given Art De Vany's age etc.. It's clearly well-staged, with excellent lighting, and no doubt a good deal of photoshopping involved(and perhaps the result of a few performance-enhancing substances?). Jack Lalanne is another such example. If I'd, in the end, chosen a cooked, palaeolithic diet primarily on the basis of how handsome Loren Cordain looks or how fit Art DeVany seems at first glance by comparison to most other dietary gurus, I would be dead by now. By contrast, an Instincto diet would have involved avoiding all those foods which were doing me great harm(though, perhaps, progress would have been slower if I'd consumed too many sweet fruits).
-
If I'd, in the end, chosen a cooked, palaeolithic diet primarily on the basis of how handsome Loren Cordain looks or how fit Art DeVany seems at first glance by comparison to most other dietary gurus, I would be dead by now. By contrast, an Instincto diet would have involved avoiding all those foods which were doing me great harm(though, perhaps, progress would have been slower if I'd consumed too many sweet fruits).
Tyler, you are quite the conundrum. paleo man was superior in every way, therefore we should expect to follow a diet exactly like paleo mans and have 0 advantages over fellow human beings that eat all the harmful substances we rave about. We should be content with having physiques that can't actually acquire food, eat those foods anyway and say we only need small amounts to thrive and that our ratios are exactly how we would eat in a natural setting having to acquire those foods by our own means and not selected from markets.
It wasn't meant to be a comparison of which diet components are the healthiest , only to illustrate approaches to food and lifestyle in spectrum of science and instinct regardless of quality but based in similar avoiding of foods. Although by the way, its a real photo, he looks(ed) like that in videos, get over it. no matter what paleo man did, we almost necessitate all kinds of artificial situations and decisions that can both limit or improve our health. left without our resources and relying on instincts we are living optimally but in the dust even to fellow humans today that eat sub-optimally? and if you cannot accept that Art has the higher probability of securing food I honestly do not know what planet your paleo men are from where they are both stronger than the current strongest person alive, able to single handedly take down large game (and yet eating a large toes worth of meat is normal) and small like a chimp with its corresponding appetite for fruit but dislike for insects.
The point that you make exactly applies way more to ones information as obviously people arn't running to every Men's Health models advice. if GCB won't even defend against responses from fellow forum members, he is obviously claiming guru status and that he doesn't have to respond to basic polite inquiries like a normal member. you can't barge into a thread and treat it likes it 'Book tv' (CSPAN) and mention its all explained elsewhere and people are basically ignorant peasants and have nothing to contribute or worthwhile. No one should have precedence here, after all its a 'forum'. Its totally unacceptable to not respond to basic questions that have at the very least, not been explained here. [in retrospect my writing is sometimes not clear, and my post here was largely in frustration that I had like 100000 characters of genuine relevant questioning without insult in the other thread with no response]
the idea that you or I would do better or worse on a cooked 'good' diet or raw 'bad' diet or that one can thrive on instincto is irrelevant. The issue is whether following instincto yields the absolute best nutrition possible over ANY artificial choices or availability . The other issue is whether animals or primitives can even decipher between the best nutrition in the wild prior to any modern distortions using only their instinct and if artificial abundance and atrophy or skill to acquire foods comes into play. if this cannot be proven, than there should be no business of instructing others in other forums (which is the root of all this) that they shouldn't be 'measuring' their food or eating when not hungry, this is classic NH driven type crap that can in-fact be dangerous as alphagruis mentions.
-
First off, I was merely making a very pertinent aside comment about the sheer uselessness of citing photos of dietary practitioners as evidence of health, especially of the leaders in diets. That is rather obvious a point, not related to the Instincto thread, but you were the one who tried to raise that separate subject through use of photos of DeVany and Burger.
As for Instincto, while I'm not a believer in some aspects of it, I do find that wild animals(and us) have some natural instincts re raw foods.
As for the 1st paragraph, it's totally distorted as I find that we do indeed have advantages over others who indulge in unnatural substances(we're much healthier for one - what's the point in using steroids, if, after long-term use, one gets conditions like heart-trouble etc.?) And there's evidence re IF(I don't actually recommend eating tiny amounts of foods, just feast-and-famine). Ah well, time to check in , have to go.
-
yep, "he's on steroids", what a complete insulting joke. obviously you are pretty impressed with his pic if you are making such ridiculous claims. the guy is in his 70's (although younger in that photo) its totally pertinent in this case and others. while you can theoretically photoshop muscles, no manner of makeup short of prosthetics will re-create them in videos. As an experiment you can always try to photoshop yourself being able to outmatch a 70 year old and see if we buy it. Everyone knows to view photos with some skepticism but as documents that back up real life observations or thought videos they are valid signs of certain aspects of health and fitness.
my comment isn't distorted at all, this is the kind of claims that you make. you say paleo man was way stronger than any contemporary exercise can recreate and yet you say elsewhere that raw foods cause weight-loss and people can't get large levels of strength and size without taking steroids and cant compete in the olympics without steroids. I could easily pick cooked natives and others that are capable of running down animals as a similar argument but they wouldn't be intentional modifying their diet for the best results. Pure physique obviously doesn't mean any person is healthier or unhealthier. We can agree that cooking is probably not the healthiest which is why De Vany should not have any advantages over any proposed raw system here. He is not on steroids and the way you transition from paleo cooked foods to steroids is abominable and embarrassing.
of course eventually there will be a response suggesting he was just referring to the other average steroid taking westerns that have strength and fitness eating crap and then one can just point to here:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/infonews-items/more-evidence-that-palaeo-tribespeople-were-strongerfitter-than-us/msg37777/#msg37777
Once again, there might be tons of beneficial points raised in instinco or beneficial practices for the initiated, the issue is whether its superior over other methodologies in producing the best results and longevity is only one component of measure. Since you repeatedly say there are only bits and pieces you believe have value, obviously you do not believe its a proper methodology in total for deciding what is best for each individual to eat. I too believe we have instincts of value.
-
How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths?
It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.
It's dangerous for a large number of people who believe in and apply Burger's stance: roughly, eat only what you're "best attracted to by smell" and eat as long as taste is pleasurable until "instinctive stop". I attended during many years the gatherings of instinctos here in France and in particular those instinctos living in the château de Montramé and from Orkos , which had access all year round to the best instincto food ever available and were according to Burger himself in ideal conditions to test his ideas. Most of even these people were emaciated, did'nt look healthy, had to take B12 or other vitamin and complement shots etc. In particular I have in mind the health damages to the young man who initially enthousiastically "teached instincto" to newbies (like me by then) during several years once Burger was in jail .
Among those people who got in the most trouble from following instincto path were precisely those who had access to a tremendous amount and variety of fruit, contrary to Burger's views.
The reasons for these health damages are simple: instincto stance leads most people to systematically overeat sweet and oily fruits and consequently for many of them not eat enough food of animal origin, in particular, fat, eggs, liver or other organ, fish or shellfish etc rich in vitamins A, K, D etc. I know of many of them who just never or only rarely ate such foods just because they were not "instinctively" attracted to. :) In contrast the same people ingested tremendous amounts of avocados ( 5 to 10 per meal or 20 bananas etc.) "No problem" they were told by instincto non sense "your organism needs so much" ;D
A few people such as Iguana or myself are exceptions because we happened to be capable to routinely eat eggs or crabs etc.
It is also true that instinctos usually do a bit better than vegans or fruitarianists. It's Raw Paleo and most instinctos eat at least some meat, but often too much muscle and not enough fat from animals i.e. not enough A,D,K vitamins, for instance.
I also do not deny that much can be learned from instincto experiment, Paleo Donk. I've learned much from Burger's work but I'd also to come to the conclusion that that part of it's stance dealing with instincts is pure nonsense.
-
Just look at the number of people who still claim to be "instinctos". There are presently probably not more than a few tens of them, worldwide. After more than 40 years since Burger invented it....
In this respect it would be of great interest to find out how many members of this forum actually claim to be instinctos.
The number of them is certainly either equal or greater than 2 :)
I'm inclined to believe that the former option might well be true ;D
At any rate it would be a surprise to me if there were more than 1% of them.
If there is anyone else in this forum who claims to be instincto, please tell us.
This would give us a very good idea as to what extent instinctos indeed "thrive" and Burger's stance about instincts actually works.
-
In April 2007 I already wrote a letter summarizing my criticisms of instincto stance to Burger in jail.
My letter just met with no response. As KD experienced in his posts, Burger usually either feigns to not understand a criticism or he distorts it or merely ignores what questions the instincto dogma. Anyway if needed he arrogantly explains away everything that is at odds with his nonsense.
As far as I know my criticisms made him fly in a terrible rage and this is still obvious now in his recent posts.
In a similar rage flew apparently Iguana 3 days ago when he initially posted the quote below to blame me (before he finally got "a better idea" and merely used censorship to delete those of my posts he did'nt like).
Thank you Francois, I am glad that you perceive my critiques as constructive and I hope that GCB will perceive them as such. But even if his reaction were to be more irritated I will understand very well and that would not remove in any way the respect, admiration and thankfulness I have for him. I do not forget he provided me the means of getting definitively rid of my damned recurrent renal calculus in a few months thanks to his instinctotherapy, whereas the ignoramus full of themselves, pretentious and narrow-minded of the medical institution had been taking me for a ride during 10 years.
which is my reply to his comments about my letter to Burger in jail in April 2007.
Maybe this is going to sound very surprising, but I still think so today and would make little change in my phrasing. Burger with his instincto made me discover Raw Paleo and this saved my life indeed.
Yet I also discovered the flaws of that part of instincto dealing instincts and the dangers associated with them. I have to sharply criticize and debunk that because it's unfortunately dangerous for a majority of those people tempted to follow instincto path.
And finally it's only very recently, since he's been released from jail, that somewhat confronted to him, I learned a lot about Burger as a perverse manipulator and it made me very sad.
-
Among those people who got in the most trouble from following instincto path were precisely those who had access to a tremendous amount and variety of fruit, contrary to Burger's views.
The reasons for these health damages are simple: instincto stance leads most people to systematically overeat sweet and oily fruits and consequently for many of them not eat enough food of animal origin, in particular, fat, eggs, liver or other organ, fish or shellfish etc rich in vitamins A, K, D etc. I know of many of them who just never or only rarely ate such foods just because they were not "instinctively" attracted to. :) In contrast the same people ingested tremendous amounts of avocados ( 5 to 10 per meal or 20 bananas etc.) "No problem" they were told by instincto non sense "your organism needs so much" ;D
I must be lucky my "instincts" and "logic" work together somehow. I'm no instincto but I do listen to my instincts and try to rationalize what my body is telling me. Our being detached from pure autonomic instinct is what makes us human.
I did my raw vegan time and found this a horrible way to live. Vegan fare does not make me happy.
I did my fruitarian time, lasted only 2 months, with probably the 2nd best fruits in the world... (maybe Thailand is best because they have a lot of durian)... it was a yummy time, but malnourishing.
But for some reason, I was never able to eat in the quantities you describe: 5 to 10 avocados? 20 bananas? Outrageous. I could never stuff myself that much. Maybe this is why I easily became malnourished.
Maybe its because I'm small? 165 cm, Filipino. Small gut capacity?
My instinct told me after 2 months of fruitarian, this was not working... I was too cold and too thin.... Then I stumbled onto Wai Diet, then boom... intake of raw fish and raw eggs made me alive.
Seafood and eggs were getting to be boring... I found Aajonus of Primal Diet and was encouraged to try raw land animals and raw milk. Raw milk tasted great but I could never digest it... lactose intolerant. I tasted the different land animals and like beef and horse best.
All you guys here in raw paleo forum were wonderful in guiding me to discover and migrate to a high fat low carb diet.
All my diet migrations so far are logic and rational first, then guided instincts follow.
There was a time I experimented with cooked meat, and at times I would have a bit of cooked meat, but somehow my instinct tells me I feel a lot better on raw meat than cooked meat.
What I'm saying is, I listen to my instincts, but it is my rational mind that makes the final decisions and after feedback, adjustments are made.
You need to lighten up a bit, Gerard. There is no "one" guru that will fit all your needs.
My old teacher Barefoot Herbalist MH pushed fruitarianism but I found out after 2 months that fruitarianism was not for me. But I still appreciate his teachings and keep them as reference.
I read Aajonus Vonderplanitz, he's a good healer, and for the people who can digest dairy, it works. But I still appreciate his teachings.
My friend Vander Gaditano and who I consider my master teacher in crisis healing is not a raw foodist. He pulls people out of stage 4 cancers routinely. He uses whatever is needed for the patient. Temporary raw vegan, temporary raw meat carnivore, a combination, raw livers, etc. I understand that crisis medicine is different. But I appreciate his teachings still.
I appreciate Instincto teachings and I am just so thankful the man himself, the original, Burger is here with us!
-
GS,
Thanks for your post.
I quite agree with everything you said.
If one calls "instincts" (a dodgy concept actually) what strongly urges us to act in a some way not subject to reasoning, unconsciously, I agree heartidly with this for instance:
I must be lucky my "instincts" and "logic" work together somehow. I'm no instincto but I do listen to my instincts and try to rationalize what my body is telling me. Our being detached from pure autonomic instinct is what makes us human.
What I'm saying is, I listen to my instincts, but it is my rational mind that makes the final decisions and after feedback, adjustments are made.
I also listen to my instincts and we all can't actually help to do so to some extent. But I also claim that we unfortunately have to control carefully with our mind and reasoning the relevant urges to not be fooled by them.
What's wrong with Burger is that he, in contrast, erroneously claims that as to food intake and regulation it is enough to comply to the olfactory and sensory sensations or alimentary instinct, provided that the food is raw and paleo.
Interesting idea a priori in the 1960's but now amply tested and proven wrong and dangerous by experiment.
Unfortunately his stance about instincts is very attractive and thus dangerous because we all would like to just comply with them...
Actually we have to learn and reinvent generation after generation how to eat and stay healthy in a rapidly changing environment whether we like it or not.
You need to lighten up a bit, Gerard. There is no "one" guru that will fit all your needs.
Yes, neither do I believe that any of us in general is right in every of his beliefs. What makes me a bit rude with Burger is not that he appears now to be wrong in some of his statements but that he stubornly continues to "teach" the relevant nonsense in spite of the evidence at hand.
But, well, I can tell you, Edwin, debunking the instinctive part of instincto is not my obsession. The experimental evidence at hand has done it since long.
I appreciate Instincto teachings and I am just so thankful the man himself, the original, Burger is here with us!
I appreciated them too and agree completely with a good deal of Burger's most remarkable work.
-
the instincto teachings as I understand them as have been reiterated here by definition require you to reject all other methodologies in order for them to work properly and that choosing nutrition based on instinctico philosophy will yield better results than any forcing or denial of foods and rejecting the pleasure instinct over methodologies or experiences. If it does not yield the best results it can hardley be call a supreme technology no matter how intrinsically located in our development nevermind for current food supply, degeneration and healing needs.
That being understood, while one can take aspects of instincto into their current diet, one cannot follow multiple methodologies like paleo diet or primal diet and call that instincto and doing so defies its value as a superior nutritional system to all others.
-
the instincto teachings as I understand them as have been reiterated here by definition require you to reject all other methodologies in order for them to work properly and that choosing nutrition based on instinctico philosophy will yield better results than any forcing or denial of foods and rejecting the pleasure instinct over methodologies or experiences. If it does not yield the best results it can hardley be call a supreme technology no matter how intrinsically located in our development nevermind for current food supply, degeneration and healing needs.
That being understood, while one can take aspects of instincto into their current diet, one cannot follow multiple methodologies like paleo diet or primal diet and call that instincto and doing so defies its value as a superior nutritional system to all others.
I agree. There is nothing like a unique superior nutritional system, anyway. There are just many ways (which are a matter of culture and environment and by no means of instincts) to eat and live and stay healthy as proven by various human ancestor groups that lived in very different environments worldwide on very different diets. Instincto as contended by Burger is not one of them for many reasons, the first being that it just never seriously worked and now 40 years after its invention the instincto movement reduces to a ridiculous handfull of poeple who closely gravitate around the guru. I bet that the movement will disappear and die out completely with him.
An example of another reason for instincto failure is that its stance about instincts puts quite unnecessary constraints on what and how to eat. For instance it contends the idea that tropical fruits are best for us because of our origin from a kind of supposed tropical paradise. The whole instincto stance actually belongs to the Noble Savage ideology and according to Burger the optimal proportion of fruit in our diet should be close to the one of chimps.
The fact is that neither tropical fruits nor even any fruit at all is indispensable to be in vibrant health.
-
yep, "he's on steroids", what a complete insulting joke. obviously you are pretty impressed with his pic if you are making such ridiculous claims.
That's just very gullible an opinion. It's simply that I've seen so many gurus(diets or exercise) with similiarly good-looking well-staged photos and it is extraordinarily unlikely that they are all as super-healthy as their photoshopped photos appear to be, given that they're doing 100s of different routines re diet etc. To believe that DeVany is telling the truth would mean having to believe that all other gurus looking as good as him re photos were also telling the truth which is just foolish.
the guy is in his 70's (although younger in that photo) its totally pertinent in this case and others. while you can theoretically photoshop muscles, no manner of makeup short of prosthetics will re-create them in videos. As an experiment you can always try to photoshop yourself being able to outmatch a 70 year old and see if we buy it. Everyone knows to view photos with some skepticism but as documents that back up real life observations or thought videos they are valid signs of certain aspects of health and fitness.
First of all, muscles can be easily built up using steroids and other substances. They don't require photoshopping.Photoshopping is now so often used to give good artificial lighting or to erase "unpleasant little details" such as wrinkles etc., that one cannot realistically trust photos any more of gurus.
my comment isn't distorted at all, this is the kind of claims that you make. you say paleo man was way stronger than any contemporary exercise can recreate and yet you say elsewhere that raw foods cause weight-loss and people can't get large levels of strength and size without taking steroids and cant compete in the olympics without steroids. I could easily pick cooked natives and others that are capable of running down animals as a similar argument but they wouldn't be intentional modifying their diet for the best results. Pure physique obviously doesn't mean any person is healthier or unhealthier. We can agree that cooking is probably not the healthiest which is why De Vany should not have any advantages over any proposed raw system here. He is not on steroids and the way you transition from paleo cooked foods to steroids is abominable and embarrassing.
It was indeed distorted as you are making (deliberately?)false conclusions about my views from quite separate things I said. As for steroids, there is no guarantee whatsoever that a particular guru isn't on steroids(too many athletes etc. have lied re this and some have eventually been found out, for someone's mere "word" to be trusted. For one thing, most people as they get really old on cooked diets, tend to end up with atherosclerosis etc., and find exercise to be a problem so that artificial substances like steroids help ease matters.
First off, my comment re raw(palaeo) foods usually causing weight-loss is perfectly true since most people on SAD diets are hideously obese, and find they lose weight on raw foods. Those who are underweight despite being on RVAF diets usually have to go in for raw dairy)which causes weight-gain) or overeat ridiculous amounts, judging from past remarks. Now, because of modern living(indeed epigenetics shows us that even a grandparent's diet can make a grandchild's health worse, so obviously some people will be underweight even on RVAF diets due to past lifestyles , heath-problems etc. and need to overeat. But that doesn't change the fact that most people on RVAF diets do normalise their weight over time(that is, they start out commonly overweight on SAD diets and gain normal weight on RVAF diets). And I certainly wasn't suggesting that palaeo tribesmen were underweight, you claimed that.
As for current sporting events, it is a fact that most professional athletes use steroids and other substances as, despite poor scientific tests(re not adequately keeping up with cheating technology) athletes are being constantly found out via random tests. Partly, this is because of the sheer competition involved but also one has to bear in mind that such athletes routinely live on unhealthy diets such as SAD(even DeVany is on cooked-palaeo) so that it is necessary for them to get extra boosts. I don't think I stated that they had no choice but to to use steroids in all cases in order to compete with each other(just with bodybuilding contests), I did state that most modern athletes do use steroids as a routine, in order to win via use of artificial methods.
As for the palaeo claims, there have been several scientific studies showing that palaeo peoples were either at least as good as or better than modern athletes, so that is beyond doubt. What is disturbing is that the comparisons are between average people in the Palaeolithic(not necessarily the best-performing palaeos) and modern athletes, who are the elite among us.
Once again, there might be tons of beneficial points raised in instinco or beneficial practices for the initiated, the issue is whether its superior over other methodologies in producing the best results and longevity is only one component of measure. Since you repeatedly say there are only bits and pieces you believe have value, obviously you do not believe its a proper methodology in total for deciding what is best for each individual to eat. I too believe we have instincts of value.
It is physically impossible for 1 guru or 1 diet to be 100% perfect in all respects that's obvious. That said, a great deal of what is involved in Instincto has been proven right whereas other diets, such as the Primal Diet, have been proven wrong in many cases, re raw dairy etc.. For example, Instincto is right on the button re forbidding non-raw and non-palaeo foods, and my own experience does show that instincts do play a part. I suppose one has to distinguish between instincts and unnatural cravings, a difficult thing to do.
Damn, I should never get involved with an argument just prior to going abroad. Well, I shall just have to wait until August, I suppose, if this goes on and on! My leisure time takes precedence.
-
Hello all,
I'm a new guy on this forum. I know and am interested in Instinctotherapy and Palaeolithic diet since my stay in Montramé in the early '90s. Since English is not my mother tongue, I will ask you guys for some leeway.
I’ve been reading alphagruis (Gérard on Paléo Cru forum) for the last week, and came to the conclusion that for some (still) obscure reasons, he is denying to humans (and animals in general) an attribute that even motor vehicles have: the use of some kind of carburetor. Applied to humans and animals, he is simply denying the existence of instinct.
Just read the following description of a carburetor’s job and you will start to have an idea of the utility of a feeding instinct, and why it is important to rediscover it:
Under all engine operating conditions, the carburetor must:
• Measure the airflow of the engine
• Deliver the correct amount of fuel to keep the fuel/air mixture in the proper range (adjusting for factors such as temperature)
• Mix the two finely and evenly
This job would be simple if air and gasoline (petrol) were ideal fluids; in practice, however, their deviations from ideal behavior due to viscosity, fluid drag, inertia, etc. require a great deal of complexity to compensate for exceptionally high or low engine speeds. A carburetor must provide the proper fuel/air mixture across a wide range of ambient temperatures, atmospheric pressures, engine speeds and loads, and centrifugal forces:
• Cold start
• Hot start
• Idling or slow-running
• Acceleration
• High speed / high power at full throttle
• Cruising at part throttle (light load)
In addition, modern carburetors are required to do this while maintaining low rates of exhaust emissions.To function correctly under all these conditions, most carburetors contain a complex set of mechanisms to support several different operating modes, called circuits.
Now, apply this to animals and humans and you will see that Burger’s claim may not be that stupid after all.
I will come back with my own experience in future posts.
-
Jacques,
Just read my ansver to GS's post above and become aware of that yours is just ridiculous :D
As to your future posts just remember from PaleoCru, you're already on my black list. No further debate with you.
J'ai l'impression de lire du GCB tout cru. Aussi tordu, aussi hypocrite et aussi fourbe.
On ignore allègrement tous les arguments et critiques de fond qui gênent, fait semblant de ne pas comprendre, fait dire à l'interlocuteur ce qu'il ne dit pas pour le discréditer ou blâmer etc etc. Bref on noie le poisson et blablate en tournant autour du pot pour embrouiller le chaland.
Je vous rajoute donc immédiatement à la liste des gens avec qui ma discussion s'est déjà arrêtée pour les mêmes raisons.
-
As for current sporting events, it is a fact that most professional athletes use steroids and other substances as, despite poor scientific tests(re not adequately keeping up with cheating technology) athletes are being constantly found out via random tests. Partly, this is because of the sheer competition involved but also one has to bear in mind that such athletes routinely live on unhealthy diets such as SAD(even DeVany is on cooked-palaeo) so that it is necessary for them to get extra boosts. I don't think I stated that they had no choice but to to use steroids in all cases in order to compete with each other(just with bodybuilding contests), I did state that most modern athletes do use steroids as a routine, in order to win via use of artificial methods.
ok I'm distorting your views yet you dedicated paragraphs to saying the same things basically that people cannot rivial raw palelos without use of artificial drugs and if they do that they are lieing? This was the worst post thus far and well illustrates my point.
not only can you not accept being wrong on this, you can't accept anyone has positive results cooking foods, using dairy etc...and have to basically come up with tons of inplausible reasons why everyone should fail dong things you don't agree with. Because he cooks he must have all these health problems and therefore he is not to be trusted even though there is a long list of people who have met the guy in person and seen in action. You have tremendous logic issues going on here and elsewhere which are quite visible in that link , the 'how big?' thread, and here without any writing I could supply to distort it. you have mentioned average palos had more strength than any possible training we can come up with in modern times. and that modern training provides poor functional strength. You are wrong and the experts you posted say you are wrong. Anyone can read the comment about the pygmy in reference to being 120 lbs and see a straw reaching contest.
as I already mentioned the point of showing the juxtaposition was not that one person was healthier based on how they looked (it included information as well), it was that a range of actual practiced habits can yield better results than natural theories even if they seem more sound scientifically and anthropologically. Of course 9/10 we are deciding this science and anthropology as amateurs on this forum, so some guys like deVany might manage to get their versions to work even better despite our best arguments and 'proof' - no cheating required. It wasn't a comparison of whos internal organs are healthier due to cooking or processing, only how people held up at higher ages. Which was totally acceptable in other threads comparison to other 'veg' gurus...
your double standard is always using conveniences or confusion against things that present conflicting successful arguments. If you had a photo of a caveman lifting a car like our current strongmen you would probably plaster it all over the site. Just like that article that blew up in terms of proving modern training poor when in reality it was all the genetic and nutritional things we can all agree on. When it doubt throw some completely unprovable monkey wrench into any well argued point.
the idea that all photos arn't reliable as information is just nonsense, this coming from someone who actually said things like "well I've heard reports on (from RPD message boards? from uncle charlie?) of instintos looking healthier than primal dieters at American potlucks" and actually mean it seriously as an argument.
what I said about instincto is correct and what you say and others say about gurus not being 100% is incorrect and misplaced. The very acceptance of it being a valid theory this means there are no beneficial therapies, and no benefit in learning form others what works. Just because you and I like many people here see merit in many aspects does not contradict this and you remain incorrect about what constitutes 'proof' seeing since you frequently make statements regarding a number of 'disputed' issues as if they can't even be contested..
-
In short, alphagruis is telling us: If theory contradicts facts, stick to theory!
-
The fact is that neither tropical fruits nor even any fruit at all is indispensable to be in vibrant health.
In this respect it's important to notice that instincto is also environmentally unsustainable in temperate countries. It's just been made possible because cheap oil was temporarily available during the past 50 years.
Normally humans have and had to eat essentially what's available locally and this resulted in a great variety of (nevertheless healthy) diets. And this is undoubtedly going to be so in future again. These environmental constraints are completely overlooked presently because cheap energy relaxed them temporarily.
http://tobyspeople.com/anthropik/2005/07/thesis-4-human-population-is-a-function-of-food-supply/index.html
-
To get a good idea of what instinctos favorite foods are and what they are urged to eat and relevant sustainability of the practice
http://fra.orkos.com/flipbook/F_Eu.html
-
To get a good idea of what instinctos favorite foods are and what they are urged to eat and relevant sustainability of the practice
http://fra.orkos.com/flipbook/F_Eu.html
Wow, thanks for the link to the Instincto catalog.
Seems we got a lot of those fruits in Manila and in our markets.
I ate some tamarind last night.
I had papaya and had coconut juice and coconut meat this morning.
Avocados available later, green mangoes too.
-
Wow, thanks for the link to the Instincto catalog.
Seems we got a lot of those fruits in Manila and in our markets.
I ate some tamarind last night.
I had papaya and had coconut juice and coconut meat this morning.
Avocados available later, green mangoes too.
Yes of course, GS.
In spite of what our double-dealer perverse guru feigns now, instinctos were systematically told that all these wonderful fruits available in your tropical country were the "best" food available for mankind.
This is even so true that those of the instinctos that could afford it moved to Indonesia or Thailand ;D
Notice by the way that the instincto food catalog shows essentially nothing but sweet and oily fruits...
And this belief was based on Burger's vague unsupported misunderstood neo-darwinistic assumption of our so-called "genetic programming in an ancestor's hypothetical tropical paradise environment", an ubiquitous wording in his former "teaching", now apparently banned from his pseudoscience babble since I told him about the flaws of this "theoretical" basis. A very funny situation that leads him now to endless ridiculous contradictory or mutually exclusive statements...
So if you want to try instincto, GS, you're indeed in an ideal situation ;D
First lesson: put 20 or 30 different fruits on a table and smell them with a film over your eyes to find out which "best meets your present needs" and eat it until so-called "instinctive stop". Sounds so nice and wonderful yet just can't and does'nt work....
My advice is rather: eat of course from these nice fruits available in your country if attracted to but be careful to not eat them systematically day after day up to "instinctive stop" because this is much too much and will prevent you from eating more nutritious indispensable foods. Fruits are definitely not indispensable.
-
I was already doing something like you describe on fruitarian and then wai diet.
These days I've shifted to a high fat low carb diet which is much more comfortable.
When I listen to my hunger instincts it tells me lately:
- raw beef, raw blue marlin, raw duck eggs
( there was a time I craved oysters all the time, I seem to have topped off )
Fruits are like superior hydrators to me, plain water really sucks to me.
- so I've get my daily coconuts and at times watermelon sometimes papayas.
1 or 2 servings a day only.
I severely limit sweet fruits. It causes my 5 year old girl tooth decay. I put her on a paleo diet with some raw meat and raw eggs and that controls her tooth decay.
-
To get a good idea of what instinctos favorite foods are and what they are urged to eat and relevant sustainability of the practice
http://fra.orkos.com/flipbook/F_Eu.html
Orkos is a commercial company meant to sale to everyone. How could it survive with merely 25 prospective customers since there is perhaps (according to yourself) 40 instinctos worldwide, including about 15 working at Orkos? Insinuating Orkos urges instinctos to eat this or that is the greatest invention since sliced bread.
I was already doing something like you describe on fruitarian and then wai diet.
These days I've shifted to a high fat low carb diet which is much more comfortable.
When I listen to my hunger instincts it tells me lately:
- raw beef, raw blue marlin, raw duck eggs
( there was a time I craved oysters all the time, I seem to have topped off )
Fruits are like superior hydrators to me, plain water really sucks to me.
- so I've get my daily coconuts and at times watermelon sometimes papayas.
1 or 2 servings a day only.
I severely limit sweet fruits. It causes my 5 year old girl tooth decay. I put her on a paleo diet with some raw meat and raw eggs and that controls her tooth decay.
It looks like you’ve spontaneously (the word “instinctively” would irritate Alphagruis even more) found a pretty well balanced way, GS. By the way, it seems to me you’re very close to GCB’s recommendations. ;)
-
If there is anyone else in this forum who claims to be instincto, please tell us.
Me, since nearly 10 years. Since nearly two years I eat fish and shellfish on a regular, almost daily basis because I was deficient in vitamin B12. I feel much better since then, especially since I eat liver and brain too (only since a few weeks).
-
Me, since nearly 10 years. Since nearly two years I eat fish and shellfish on a regular, almost daily basis because I was deficient in vitamin B12. I feel much better since then, especially since I eat liver and brain too (only since a few weeks).
Thanks Hanna.
You're apparently rather an ex instincto then.
Unless your "instinct" really attracted you to eat brain, liver, fish etc? Did you compare these foods with muscle or fat by smell and select organs?
Or did you merely eat these foods because you intellect and proven B12 deficency urged you to? ;D
-
Keep cool, Iguana alias "Burger told me".
Don't be so angry.
It looks like you’ve spontaneously (the word “instinctively” would irritate Alphagruis even more) found a pretty well balanced way, GS. By the way, it seems to me you’re very close to GCB’s recommendations. ;)
Of course, all of us believe you, since Burger told you,
ANY DIET THAT WORKS IS NECESSARILY INSTINCTO, EVEN THE INUIT ONE
AMEN ;D
-
Unless your "instinct" really attracted you to eat brain, liver, fish etc?
Yes! I tried to eat muscle meat "instincto", that is not salted or the like. But it doesn´t taste to me in sufficient quantities. I don´t know why. However, I LOVE fish and shellfish and liver (for example chicken liver) and also brain, and I like bone marrow too. For a long time I thought, veganism is possibly a healthier way of living; now I´m convinced that veganism sooner or later transforms everyone into a zombie...
-
I severely limit sweet fruits. It causes my 5 year old girl tooth decay. I put her on a paleo diet with some raw meat and raw eggs and that controls her tooth decay.
Yes, exactly, GS
This is what all of us have to do and this is a matter of intellect and culture and the final result of a trial and error learning by experience. There is nothing like an innate capability or "instinct" that can do this job
-
Yes! I tried to eat muscle meat "instincto", that is not salted or the like. But it doesn´t taste to me in sufficient quantities. I don´t know why. However, I LOVE fish and shellfish and liver (for example chicken liver) and also brain, and I like bone marrow too. For a long time I thought, veganism is possibly a healthier way of living; now I´m convinced that veganism sooner or later transforms everyone into a zombie...
It is possible that your former veganism was an intellectual barrier that prevented you to feel attracted to foods of animal origin. Of course instincto is not veganism and certainly cannot be blamed for that. Veganism is a terrible ideology.
-
In spite of what our double-dealer perverse guru feigns now, instinctos were systematically told that all these wonderful fruits available in your tropical country were the "best" food available for mankind.
Fortunately for us, another (but gentle and good intentioned) guru, Alphagruis, is now debunking the “perverse guru” GCB by selectively quoting fragments of the latter’s general principles. But sadly, the gentle guru doesn’t provide the source he refers to, so that readers are unable to check his impartiality:
First lesson: put 20 or 30 different fruits on a table and smell them with a film over your eyes to find out which "best meets your present needs" and eat it until so-called "instinctive stop". Sounds so nice and wonderful yet just can't and does'nt work....
This quote concerns a single training exercise (“first lesson”) amongst several other exercises; it has been extracted selectively from the entire method and is therefore absolutely unrepresentative of the whole instincto practice. Once again the approach commonly used by the gentle new guru appears: modify the ideas of those he disputes the views in order to attack them with arguments apparently convincing.
The fact is that the “perverse guru” actually said something quite different, found for example in his first book (page 213 of La Guerre du Cru, ed Faloci 1985):
The reintegration of the alimentary instinct is not an operation as simple as one would believe: a lot of intelligence is necessary to escape the traps of the intelligence! A solid formal and practical training is essential in order to avoid the pitfalls and waste of time inherent to a start as a loner. The instincto pioneers have themselves groped for years before all got sufficiently developed. However, you will find in the following pages some rules intended to enable you, if all is well, to have a successful up to three or five days first experiment that will bring you, to begin with, the greatest well being of the digestive tract.
A translation of a latter and more comprehensive version of this warning is on line here :
Don’t mess about in the raw! (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat6.html)
Then the innovative gentle guru goes on to offer advices almost identical to the more general recommendations of the “perverse guru”:
My advice is rather: eat of course from these nice fruits available in your country if attracted to but be careful to not eat them systematically day after day up to "instinctive stop" because this is much too much and will prevent you from eating more nutritious indispensable foods.
Finally the new guru uses insults again:
Keep cool, Iguana alias "Burger told me".
Don't be so angry.
I’m absolutely cool, not angry at all and I’m still waiting for the help concerning my garden that my friend Alphagruis told me will be offered by himself. Don’t worry: I won’t disturb him any longer while he performs his sacred mission of “instincto debunking”!
I learned one thing of all this: beware of your best friends, they may suddenly and unpredictably attack you in an awfully aggressive way…
-
Sure, Iguana, here again you're right and I'm quite wrong.
Obviously, you're absolutely cool and not angry at all.
-
remember that episode of Happy Days when The Fonz was going on about the perverse guru?
he was all: Aaaayyyyyy! whats all this fruit on my table.
-
Science is a way of conceptualizing the world, but intelligence is elsewhere, in living dynamical systems. The recent discovery concerning the existence of a dynamic regulation system of the genetic vocabulary, called epigenetic, demonstrates how intelligence is ahead of the concept.
I better understand now what alphagruis refutes in Burger, Instincto and Meta. He questions the conceptual tools used to describe them and he is probably right, especially about Meta. But contrary to alphagruis’s point of view, Burger’s experience came before the theory. He simply used the tools available to him at the time of trying to explain it and still goes on adjusting it, like they do in any science fields.
However, in rejecting the reality of instinct and by readily accepting the validity of Raw Paleo diet, all this supported on the recent discovery of epigenetic, alphagruis makes a fundamental logical error. Let me explain:
Epigenetic is a dynamic regulation system but, as demonstrated in the article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (Caring Mothers Against Strike Fatal Blow Genetic Determinism), it is qualitatively undifferentiated (garbage in, garbage out). It therefore lacks a dynamic quality control system (higher level).
Hence, if I understand him correctly, alphagruis claims that the actual state of knowledge, along with the trial and error method, is all man has to regulate himself qualitatively, at the very least for his feeding needs. Let me burst into laughter. That would be of boundless wittiness but for the pathos of such a statement.
Nothing is slower and less dynamic than conceptual intelligence. If we had to rely on it to survive as a specie, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
After recognizing epigenetic, like an illumination, as gene’s dynamic control system, alphagruis fails to recognise the same principle at work in the instinctive way of choosing food, a highly dynamic quality control system. At the same time, he puts his behind, heavy of contentment, on the static concept (like any diet actually) of paleo-crudivorism. (sorry guys)
I’ll let him get the error for himself ...
Personally I like Alice in Wonderland’s imagery; it perfectly describes the instincto point of view. A while ago, on the other side of the mirror, we already knew that the genetic researches looking to find the faulty genes for every illnesses (except in some rare cases) would fail.
Why?
Because by instincto logic and experience, we already possess a qualitatively dynamical food control system (coded, innate, like any other living dynamic control system) that manages with the genetic, epigenetic and environmental data it has at its disposal, from year to year, from season to season, from environments to environments, from seconds to seconds ... But, like an internal combustion engine carburetor (another kind of dynamic control system), it can only function properly under the conditions for and in which it was developed. To put it bluntly, genetic or epigenetic problems, weaknesses or errors have little meaning, to the extent that instinct is able to act properly and compensate for them.
Now, is instinct easy to use? The answer is NO.
Since none of us were born in an instinctive promoting context, it takes, under proper guidance and in best case scenario, a few weeks in order to reactivate the instinctive link to the environment (food in particular) and, since our civilized brain has a hard time letting go of what it thinks it knows, it probably takes a lifetime to really master its expression.
But this is the ONLY way out of the mess we generated, the only worthy legacy to our children, because it implies and teaches a fluid, non static way of looking and interacting with the world.
So, as you see, there are actually only two alternatives: the sorcerer's apprentice perpetual continuation of trial and error or the rediscovery of the hunter / gatherer’s instinct. But with a civilization of people like alphagruis, I would not bet on the latter’s resurrection chances.
Nevertheless, these recent epigenetic discoveries are another step toward the acceptance and recognition of the existence of living dynamic control systems (some of which are called instincts).
Unfortunately, the worst of applied science is still to come.
-
Science is a way of conceptualizing the world, but intelligence is elsewhere, in living dynamical systems. The recent discovery concerning the existence of a dynamic regulation system of the genetic vocabulary, called epigenetic, demonstrates how intelligence is ahead of the concept.
since you like literary references, let me just label this 'much ado about nothing'
all this is basically meant to treat the types of knowledge accumulated on this board as 'static' and what exists in nature as 'dyanimic' and perfectly functioning for us to just adopt into our own circumstances, which is really the most naive stance of all and is presented in your passage not others. There is nothing naive about anyone rejecting such nonsense of 'natural' solution, particularly if people have embraced such ideas to their own measurable detriment on a system which should be entirely fail proof if it is at all to have any credibility in making day to day choices never mind lifetime ones. Or as countlessly mentioned if wild animals or primitives were placed in our contemporary environment.
you don't have to be a wizard/scientist to see people's desires are not lining up with the best results (and the discrepancies and impossibilities of such that I point out in the other thread), and no citing of science's pitfalls for humanity disrupts this. The simple fact is once someone passes such skill tests or pretentious animalizing of their psyche (reversals of humanities 'skills' to deep rooted instincts, which apparently still makes people choose non biological foods) it follows with mediocre nutrition in a modern context compared to what is possible with added means, with no need assertion that science trumps nature. Your example of a comparison to a carburetor proves nothing if that car is an old jalopy competing against a Ferrari with better science behind it. the existence of a internal mechanism does not prove that mechanism dictates what is best for the servicing of the entire vehicle, the best type of fuel, the best way to clean a windshield, how often to change the oil etc.. these are modern 'sciences' for lack of a better word and can be perfected through knowledge and experience alone with no instincts contributing to better functioning. and since when did a carburetor signal to the car what kind of fuel to use that it acts without man's decision making?
instincto is founded on the idea that the choosing what one desires results in the greatest health, therefore once one is past the indoctrination phase, it should be simpler to follow than any other diet and have very little reasons for people to move on to other approaches unless their diet was failing them. It should have a higher satisfaction and healing results AT LEAST to all other RPD as certainly those that include mixed foods or artificial 'raw' foodstuffs if they are so harmful. Sticking with all other raw meat approaches as a comparison, because paleo or primal should be harder to stick to both socially (which they ARE) and due to nutritional issues of excess that have been claimed. all evidence suggests the opposite in terms of the statistical information available. That people have to work against their 'natural' inclinations which clearly do not match up with how our ancestors would have eaten no matter which story one believes. Certainly most people on a raw diet would be happy to choose whatever foods they wanted and yet neglecting such manage to stay on their particular approach and neglect the obvious appeal of instincto which by definition would in the end be more pleasurable and healthier. And yet you are saying that people's main obstruction to something that is so blatantly beneficial and easier IN THEORY than what they could come up with through knowledge, is a simplistic judgment over natures abilities? and yet static knowledge is the fairytale here? over reliance of internal desires in an artificially regulated construct? even in ignorance of empirical data stating otherwise simply because it has to do with knowledge? I think some modern drugs are calling your name...
-
If you cannot basically make the difference between needs and desires, no wonder you don't understand what I'm referring to.
The world I'm talking about existed and will exist well after we finally disappear. It certainly does not need our "knowledge" to thrive, on the contrary. I wish we could be a part of it, but we decided otherwise by making bad choices. It is called Evodeviation...
Ecological niches are very demanding. Escaping from them is not synonymous to freedom, but to loss of direction. (Paul Shepard, in Ten Thousand Years of Crisis)
-
Yeah I saw Avatar twice too. very moving.
Throw your sorrys in a sack mister, you still have to decided which way of eating in a contemporary context is the best regardless of how imperfect or dumb we are for destroying the planet. So its your choice to outweigh various contrary experience and choose the systems that seem more natural as being conducive to health. I certainly did that for years, So I can't in conscience wish you well with that. Don't pretend others are ignorant of various common sense things about nature. Its already been proven (at least to my standard) that animals and humans in nature will not eat their most healthful foods based on instinct, so I don't believe people in artificial circumstances with all manner of internal disease will troubleshoot those decisions no matter how close to nature they can bring their habits or routines. There are whales 100s of miles off the coast of civilization who have accumulated tons of heavy metal poisoning eating all raw and through instinct. Sticking 100% to natural diet and natural activity does nothing to clear this matter as there is no natural mechanism for it. Even prior to that the idea that every being lived up to its potential and all this other nonsense is a complete myth as dinosaur fossils have been found with tumors.
The main factor you speak is only pertinent in that situations were highly geared towards success and no manner of toxic inheritance was in play which allowed one to 'thrive' fine even on poor nutrition ratios which certainly could be improved with science given the same circumstances but shift in quantities. This is NOT the same as humans or animals making choices outside of those situational factors, well observed in the shift of humans during the ice ages and such to 'less ideal' ratios according to insctinto itself! in other words it requires no departure from natural foods and habits to eat sub optimally even according to its own theory. And its apparently possible that people can be following instincto and neglecting foods that are seen even by instincto as superior, so obviously the best choices are not made by instinct and desires easily satisfied with less optimal substitutes. Wild animals will make poor food choices past preset and future and I'll continue to weigh the best choices based on experience and not get too hung up deviated circumstances. As long as made up methods are not seen to both surpass our current issues as well as estimate past paradigms, I really cannot control the damage done by others science or faulty ideology.
it takes like a minute to write this stuff...perhaps maybe longer I don't want it chocked full of typos. I'll take that as a compliment, I was speaking in slight as its obvious to me one is acting on desires and not needs if they can neglect basic nutritional elements and dismiss entire types of foods because they taste or smell worse, even ones we know based on study that were consumed by primitives and the primates they artificially relate to through science interpretation. Although these findings are probably just a massive conspiracy to divorce us from The Mother.
-
I did not see Avatar, so I cannot comment. In my daily life, I'm probably doing the same thing you are, trying to make the best of it.
If Instincto was just another way of eating raw food, I wouldn't have bothered with it. I spent a 3 months leave of work in France to learn and practice Instincto, 20 years ago. It changed the way I see life forever, I'm just expressing that fact. Should I be worried it makes you think of Avatar?
Anyway, I'm not here to destroy any genuine effort in the right direction, but allow me to gently scratch some things on the way... ;)
That said, I will go delight myself of this almost black caribou liver... Bon appétit!
-
Avatar was an incredible artless sappy farce that probably in the end has a message that is helpful for the simple minded when it comes to basic stuff like picking their trash and so forth.
It was a phenomenal piece of entertainment, and the creator's well-intended brainwashing were marked by elements of prejudice and naivete towards 'savages' amongst other simplistic tropes.
seemed appropriate
I don't dispute the possibility of someone living quite healhfully on instincto especially because I don't believe people are acting entirely outside their conditioning, and more or less balancing their diet based in theories anyway. My only objection is to the various logical issues, criticisms, and false superiority ("paleo-crudivorism"?) complexes which seems to insinuate others ineptitude and yet bow out of conversations when challenged upon basic contradictions.
That said, I will go delight myself of this almost black caribou liver... Bon appétit!
sure, let us know how your next 10 meals of the evening go.
-
First, a little good faith is never out of line...
Second, I never bow out of conversations when challenged upon basic contradictions, but the arguments must be presented in an understandable way. I’m having a lot of problems deciphering your gibberish.
Third, did you learn Instincto somewhere or did you just try it out of deduction?
-
I think your posts go a little bit beyond faith and joy in the benefits of instincto.
perhaps you should participate in the other thread over this one, that one is appropriate for instinctos to pick and choose which points they can easily rationalize and mystify to their own satisfation. this one is for debunking instincto, and no claims of others cynical blindness are going to fly without proof of actual holes in their interpretation. To either debunk or to actually challenging people on their debunking without having to refer to external stuff or referring to the failings of science or whatever, which everyone can agree with.
I also wrote out some comments for the English impaired there.
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38617/#msg38617
although it begins much before that.
-
So if I understand your rules well, I have to prove actual holes in your interpretation, but you don't have to prove the same in mine ?
See, I can understand what you say when you speak clearly.
As to flying, if I were you, I would refrain from trying that. You're too heavy...
-
I can list five points that were brought up by you which were debunked by me. mainly a carburetor does not choose fuel in a car nor can a car preform at its highest simply because it gets adequate fuel and can be easily improved in many ways by science. And 2. that therefore having the existence of a mechanism that dictates needs or desires is meaningless as a source of optimal decision making.
Everything you wrote in 'much ado about nothing' was biased and false and fairly nasty as well. If you can't understand what I wrote, my best suggestion is to check the other thread and participate there As there YOU won't have to justify your remarks, whereas I think I feel pretty accountable about my own here. Beginning to understand when alphagruis mentioned you are blacklisted, this is like "I know you are but what am I" school of arguing.
-
I wonder where humans sense of smell ranks for mammals, primates? I would assume humans evolved in a manner that their sense of smell greatly diminished in place so other higher functioning (pattern recognition, ability to read, etc..) mechanisms could develop.
I still wonder how eating instincto in the wild, where it needs to take place for it to be taken seriously, would change the intake of the diet. Perhaps raw zero carb would rule in the wild. And in the wild you may adhere to your other instinctive practices which also must necessarily be adhered to so that the diet part is maximized. Like defecating instinctively, being naked, masturbating, etc...
-
You won, both of you. The weight of your arguments finally got me.
Stay as you are, you are the kings of your kingdom...
By the way, how do you unsubscribe from a forum?
-
As to flying, if I were you, I would refrain from trying that. You're too heavy...
I seriously hope you are refering to my ego/stance here being 'large'?
If you are referring to my pic, I seriously have to laugh as I'm 160 (or less) in this photo (72kg for you metrics) which is medically AT LEAST 15 lbs (~7kg) under the low end of average! which in extrapolations of cro-magnon and claims of various posters here would be infinitely smaller than our ancestors even hiding behind SWD's distortions of physique and toxic cellular build up which affects 'average' weight. Just more obvious fallacies that imply instinctos are chronically underweight and under muscled, under-active and have a major distortion when it comes to what to eat to fuel such unnatural capabilities or lack there of. For a male of average height, anything under 70 kg is underweight and much lower can be see by cursed science as pathological.
-
Hehe - Instead of peacefully trying to make your points and give your experience so that others might have a chance to hear your story, you instinctively insta-leave?
Is this how you handle other decisions? Without thinking it through. Its ironic it aligns precisely with your instinctual eating habits. You do realize this looks horrible for you leaving because of a very few members. It could be that the rest of the forum is supportive of you but has yet to make any presence known by way of posting.
-
You won, both of you. The weight of your arguments finally got me.
Stay as you are, you are the kings of your kingdom...
By the way, how do you unsubscribe from a forum?
no one is trying to dissuade you (directly) from following instincto, This is a discussion thread to discuss points about the merits, or fallacies in instinctos claims over other methodologies. If you can't debunk the debunkers without resorting to insults and vague defenses or dodge points, than you arn't going to be taken seriously by those that are already not very impressed and your passions are better used in other threads. Other than that, I don't even see what the point of being on a discussion forum for instinctos would be other than to spread there successes or dogma, I mean theres is clearly nothing to learn from others that comes close to nature in any use or application.
-
Also I have no king, but do accept Alphagruis' black girlfriend as my queen.
-
I always ask myself 2 questions:
1- Am I having fun?
2- Do I have something to learn or gain?
When the answer is NO to both these questions, I leave...
-
I always ask myself 2 questions:
1- Am I having fun?
2- Do I have something to gain?
When the answer is NO to both these questions, I leave...
Well, your system also dictates there is absolutely nothing to gain by sharing with 'paleo-crudivores' and I guess lecturing people for being cynical idiots blinded by evidence has sort of lost its charm for you. I usually force myself to do all kinds of things I don't want to do, usually makes me learn things or get money to pay for food and things of use and actually get stronger and healthier.
-
It sure did, you got me cornered.
I usually force myself to do all kinds of things I don't want to do, usually makes me learn things or get money to pay for food and things of use and actually get stronger and healthier.
See, you have something to gain in forcing yourself... There's all kinds of ways to gain, pleasure is also a gain, so in fact there is only one question...
-
Guys, can we tone it down a notch or two?
There are very few raw paleo dieters around the world, we need to be more welcoming to one another.
Recently I'm in contact with a fellow Filipino who is on Aajonus' Primal diet, I'm not into that, I don't eat tomatoes and I don't drink milk, but hey, there are so few of us, I don't mind.
Our differences come out as very minor from the point of view of the outsiders. Figure it out guys. We should form tighter bonds with one another.
-
There are very few raw paleo dieters around the world, we need to be more welcoming to one another.
granted this stuff is a two way street, but nearly all of this guys 10 posts are flush with insults and derogatory remarks towards either individuals or RPD dieters in general.
its not just a question of accepting differences, basically the whole instincto mindset is a rejection of RPD, a rejection of PD, a rejection of anything practiced and learned on this forum. read the posts, its all there.
Also, PD'er generally get shafted in all cases on this site as having 0 crediblity or just labeled wrong whenever they participate in conversations.
In order to have tighter bonds, you have to have rules apply equally to everyone that qualifies under the sub-forums of this site.
-
Also I have no king, but do accept Alphagruis' black girlfriend as my queen.
She loves your pic, Paleo Donk :)
-
Guys, can we tone it down a notch or two?
There are very few raw paleo dieters around the world, we need to be more welcoming to one another.
Recently I'm in contact with a fellow Filipino who is on Aajonus' Primal diet, I'm not into that, I don't eat tomatoes and I don't drink milk, but hey, there are so few of us, I don't mind.
Our differences come out as very minor from the point of view of the outsiders. Figure it out guys. We should form tighter bonds with one another.
GS,
Jacques is apparently just a troll, not even a raw paleo dieter or instincto with any serious experience to share.
His posts are of that kind of garbage from a scientific point of view, I hardly ever met before.
They are obviously just intented to confuse this thread.
Yet unlike the pro-instincto thread, no posts are deleted here. Jacques ones are so ridiculous that it's worth to keep them as textbook examples of pseudoscientific garbage.
-
It is possible that your former veganism was an intellectual barrier that prevented you to feel attracted to foods of animal origin.
Oh, doesn´t that sound very "burgerly", like something Burger has told you ;) and as if you still would believe in the perfect instinct only disturbed by this wicked intellect? ;) But you could be right.
"Instinct" is perhaps an outdated and certainly not clearly defined concept. Without having read all the posts in this thread - could THIS be the problem? I think that intuition is far more crucial than the alliesthetic signals; in my view alliesthetic signals are only a kind/type of emergency break.
Instinkt ist vielleicht ein veraltetes, mit Sicherheit aber kein klar definiertes Konzept. Könnte dies das Problem sein? Ich denke, dass die intuitiven Signale viel entscheidender für die Regulierung des Essverhaltens als die alliästhetischen Signale sind. Die alliästhetischen Signale scheinen mir nur eine Art von Notbremse zu sein. Gcb, was meinen Sie dazu?
-
Oh, doesn´t that sound very "burgerly", like something Burger has told you ;) and as if you still would believe in the perfect instinct only disturbed by this wicked intellect? ;) But you could be right.
"Instinct" is perhaps an outdated and certainly not clearly defined concept. Without having read all the posts in this thread - could THIS be the problem? I think that intuition is far more crucial than the alliesthetic signals; in my view alliesthetic signals are only a kind/type of emergency break.
Instinkt ist vielleicht ein veraltetes, mit Sicherheit aber kein klar definiertes Konzept. Könnte dies das Problem sein? Ich denke, dass die intuitiven Signale viel entscheidender für die Regulierung des Essverhaltens als die alliästhetischen Signale sind. Die alliästhetischen Signale scheinen mir nur eine Art von Notbremse zu sein. Gcb, was meinen Sie dazu?
Maybe you won't believe it, Hanna, but I wrote my remark and expected that you would retort in such a way as an instincto....
As I already mentioned repeatedly I agree with a lot of things Burger told us :)
But please notice also that someone may be right on one thing and utterly wrong on another and this is actually the rule.
More specifically here, my remark sounds "burgerly" in your mind because of your instincto history. Yet the relevant phenomenon I mentioned is very well known since decades and nicely demonstrated by hundreths of papers. In general the response to a given stimulation of one of our senses depends strongly on our recent and even remote past history and in particular on training, learning by trial and error, various activities etc, in short it depends on essentially everything one might imagine both expected and by essence unexpected previous events of life in a definitely very complex and intertwinned way.
In other words this means that the hedonic character (attraction, repulsion...) of a food odour for instance in by no means just a matter of present state and supposed "needs in nutriments" of our organism. BTW note that this reality by itself actually definitely falsifies the instincto dogma.
From a theoretical point of view the "instinct" concept is indeed not clearly defined and many people put actually different things in it. What complex system theory even tells us now is that it actually cannot be defined seriously in any way because of a fondamental epistemologic barrier. I know that this is disturbing but I'm too busy now to dwell into this here, sorry.
In practice this means that Burger's program to "find out the conditions that permits a hypothetical perfect instinct to work properly" is definitely vain, unfortunately. These conditions cannot be worked out for epistemologic reasons.
Healthy eating has to be learned and is unfortunately not instinctive. I contend the idea (in a French forum) that what you call intuition (and others erroneously instinct) is actually the result of a learned unconscious behaviour (normally at weaning or in our case later on by memorizing our first experiences with different solid foods replacing either mother's milk or SAD foods) that lets us know before any contact with any food what food might be appropriate when we're hungry and then look for it with relevant but pertinent energy expenditure as in the wild rather than the absurd gathering of various foods and supposedly select one of them by smell and taste.
I suggest you read the posts I wrote here and in the pro-instincto thread about instincto dogma and in particular about the role of for instance environmental constraints among many other factors besides alliesthesy in the emergence of nutritional balance or health in nature.
Also maybe in French (sorry) forums
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5540
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/4996
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5791
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5802
http://paleocru.webatu.com/forum/index.php/topic,39.0.html
-
Hello all,
I'm a new guy on this forum. I know and am interested in Instinctotherapy and Palaeolithic diet since my stay in Montramé in the early '90s. Since English is not my mother tongue, I will ask you guys for some leeway.
...
I will come back with my own experience in future posts.
Welcome new member :) Where is Montramé? I like what you say about intelligence. Sometimes people conceptualize so much, but it has such a hard time approaching the beauty of the innate intelligence in natural systems. I like abstract concepts etc but concepts and nature are different and may not be the most efficient way to get from one to the other.
I think this is my first addition to this thread. I don't know enough about Instincto Therapy to want to debunk it. I've kind of lived it I guess, in the past, but did so with no animal foods (nor animal clothes etc).
-
If I was particularly on your case, alphagruis, there was a reason for it.
You are very bad mannered and this trait of character of yours has the ability to migrate to others, so doing, putting an end to sensible conversation. Though, the funny thing is that your first posts on either forums (French and English) are intelligent and sensible. But for some reason, whenever someone does not blissfully agree with you, and contrary to GCB, you get contemptuous and often insulting. Being sarcastic with people (or something in that line of thought) never has a good effect on the level of conversation.
As a scientist you have a pedagogical responsibility. If you don't want to assume it, I'm pretty sure you have better things to do.
I clumsily tried to tone you down by mixing my experience with texts and contradictions I get from your posts... That was a bad idea, badly expressed. I will try to find the time to express it in a better and clearer way, in the near future.
Nevertheless, GCB may be wrong when he's talking about instinct, which would also imply that I also am. But I certainly am of good faith and true to my experience. The matter of fact is I read and will continue the suggested readings you posted. So far, I find them very interesting, but nothing in those contradicts the possible existence of other dynamic mechanisms.
But please notice also that someone may be right on one thing and utterly wrong on another and this is actually the rule.
This could also apply to you...
-
I contend the idea (in a French forum) that what you call intuition (and others erroneously instinct) is actually the result of a learned unconscious behaviour
In my case, the instinctive stop signals are often very subtle. If I wait for clear stop signals I not rarely eat too much. If I respect (listen to) kind of intuitive signals, I stop eating while or before these subtle signals manifest. Yes, I suspect, that these signals can be influenced by learning. Doesn´t gcb think the same?
>>What complex system theory even tells us now is that it actually cannot be defined seriously in any way because of a fondamental epistemologic barrier. I know that this is disturbing but I'm too busy now to dwell into this here, sorry.
If you want to explain this some day, I am interested.
I don´t speak french.
-
In my case, the instinctive stop signals are often very subtle. If I wait for clear stop signals I not rarely eat too much. If I respect (listen to) kind of intuitive signals, I stop eating while or before these subtle signals manifest. Yes, I suspect, that these signals can be influenced by learning. Doesn´t gcb think the same?
The point is precisely that the "instinctive" stop signals do not merely "delicately regulate food intake" and actually don't have to as Burger assumes and as one might expect if something like a perfect "instinct" was to exist . I have already told about this repeatedly before. They just do not need to and Burger's reasoning as to this fine tuned delicate regulation supposedly being true as a simple consequence of Darwin's natural selection is wrong. Not every feature of an organism needs and moreover has to be optimized in this way. Food intake regulation is much more subtle and includes in particular major environmental constraints
Roughly speaking "stop signals" in case of sweet or fatty foods occur to late (alreading to much ingested). The reverse is true for veggies. What in nature regulated intake in this case was the limited respectively virtual unlimited alvailability of the respective foods in interplay with the strong respectively weak inbuild or "innate" attraction towards such foods. And this regulation does not take place instantly day after day but just over a whole one year period.
Hence we cannot merely listen to alliethesy signals but have to correct them with our mind and how to do this is what has to be learned. In other words we have to force ourselves to limit sweet fruit intake. (By the way while it is true that attraction and repulsion are influenced by learning there is absolutely no evidence that learning makes the so called "stop signal" (a vague concept by the way) to occur earlier with sweet or later with veggies so as to ensure nutritional balance, as you seem to suggest)
>>What complex system theory even tells us now is that it actually cannot be defined seriously in any way because of a fondamental epistemologic barrier. I know that this is disturbing but I'm too busy now to dwell into this here, sorry.
If you want to explain this some day, I am interested.
I don´t speak french.
A difficult task. I suggest that meanwhile you try to grasp what's in concepts like emergence and self-organization
-
Roughly speaking "stop signals" in case of sweet or fatty foods occur to late (alreading to much ingested). The reverse is true for veggies. What in nature regulated intake in this case was the limited respectively virtual unlimited alvailability of the respective foods in interplay with the strong respectively weak inbuild or "innate" attraction towards such foods. And this regulation does not take place instantly day after day but just over a whole one year period.
A further problem with veggies could be that we are genetically partially adapted to cooked food and therefore (1) can´t eat or ("instinctively") avoid eating larger quantities of antinutrients (which are eliminated by cooking) and (2) depend on easily digestible food, with the result that we are not strongly attracted by many raw veggies, especially if they are wild (not cultured).
-
A further problem with veggies could be that we are partially adapted to cooked food and therefore (1) can´t eat larger quantities of antinutrients (which are eliminated by cooking) and (2) depend on easily digestible food, with the result that we are not strongly attracted by many raw veggies, especially if they are wild (not cultured).
Yes I agree. During our evolutionary path humans unlike gorillas or ruminants managed (big brain) to get at a good deal of food of animal origin that usually does not contain antinutrients since animals are mobile and have developed other strategies to not be eaten by predators.
BTW, it is also important to realise that it is definitely not a good approach to view us or other animals as "designed" by some mysterious entity or engineer (be it a god or the natural selection or anything else) to thrive and be in optimal health in a natural paradise. Natural order is always the result of some trade off. Plants (except in fruits) must synthetize defense chemicals that prevent their predators to wipe them out of the planet and plant predators must detect these chemicals (bitterness) and cope with or metabolize a limited amount of them. And there is a perpetual struggle in this respect. If predators became able to metabolize too much defense chemicals the relevant plants would disappear. If the predator could'nt eat any plant at all he was going to die out too. Hence in a healthy balanced sustainable ecosystem plant eating predators necessarily can only eat the relevant plants in a limited quantity. Yet there is no reason that in the case of man, an omnivore species, this phenomenon interpreted in instincto dogma as the existence of an "instinctive stop" is even remotely optimized in terms of our own health or interests.
-
Well, the above re KD's claim is obviously wrong. Rawpalaeo agrees with Instincto on numerous levels. There's the anti-raw/ anti-non-palaeo aspect(not even Primal Diet is right re the latter part). Instincto claims that non-raw/non-palaeo foods create unnatural cravings - also backed up by rawpalaeo doctrine plus various scientific studies describing addictive opioids in dairy/grains/cooked foods. Instinctos claim that raw wild game is superior to raw grassfed/domesticated meats, that processing such as juicing veg was a bad idea, healthwise etc.. So Burger got it right far more often than Aajonus ever did. Now, like any human, he cannot possibly be 100% right/perfect but one should acknowledge that he got most of it right re diet.
As for the instinct aspect, my instincts led me to go rawpalaeo as, in my raw vegan days, I got huge unnatural cravings for sweet fruits(due to nutrient deficiencies no doubt) which were destroying my life and I couldn't handle any cooked animal foods at the time re digestion - so I instinctively chose raw meats(plus some raw plants) as the sole option left to me.
-
ok I'm distorting your views yet you dedicated paragraphs to saying the same things basically that people cannot rivial raw palelos without use of artificial drugs and if they do that they are lieing? This was the worst post thus far and well illustrates my point.
I simply said that most current professional athletes use drugs/steroids so that that aspect definitely contributes partially to their sporting success. That's a simple fact, due to the excess competition in current times. Palaeos did not have access to such drugs, yet showed bone-structure etc. at least as good as those of modern athletes.
not only can you not accept being wrong on this, you can't accept anyone has positive results cooking foods, using dairy etc...and have to basically come up with tons of inplausible reasons why everyone should fail dong things you don't agree with. Because he cooks he must have all these health problems and therefore he is not to be trusted even though there is a long list of people who have met the guy in person and seen in action. You have tremendous logic issues going on here and elsewhere which are quite visible in that link , the 'how big?' thread, and here without any writing I could supply to distort it. you have mentioned average palos had more strength than any possible training we can come up with in modern times. and that modern training provides poor functional strength. You are wrong and the experts you posted say you are wrong. Anyone can read the comment about the pygmy in reference to being 120 lbs and see a straw reaching contest.
It is quite clear from the above that you are hopelessly biased on this issue. First of all, I have actually stated, in the past, that some people are better adapted towards raw dairy or cooked foods, so that is a definite example of terminological inexactitude. Secondly, the main point I was making is that 100s of other gurus, diet-oriented or otherwise, show similiar physically enhanced bodies and beautiful photos, all of whom practise widely different diets. To suggest , based on a vague(most likely photoshopped)photo that someone must be following a perfect diet is just a perfect example of gullibility. Similiarly, Schwarzenegger looked great in his time, but then he developed heart-trouble etc., later on, as a result of steroids. So, basing one's views on photos when there are 1000s of similiar photos of gurus just like that , is ridiculous. As for the long list of people, so have many others met other gurus like Cordain or Dr Atkins, argument invalid as they can't determine steroids used in privacy etc.
And the palaeo evidence re bones/fossils shows beyond doubt that they had an advantage over us re physical exercise. Yes, some modern athletes might use specific weights to enhance 1 particular muscle better than palaeos etc., but that still doesn't get round the fact that palaeos had superior functional strength. And, I say once again, functional strength is not the same as vague "general" strength, in the muscle-bound, modern weightlifter-sense.
as I already mentioned the point of showing the juxtaposition was not that one person was healthier based on how they looked (it included information as well), it was that a range of actual practiced habits can yield better results than natural theories even if they seem more sound scientifically and anthropologically. Of course 9/10 we are deciding this science and anthropology as amateurs on this forum, so some guys like deVany might manage to get their versions to work even better despite our best arguments and 'proof' - no cheating required. It wasn't a comparison of whos internal organs are healthier due to cooking or processing, only how people held up at higher ages. Which was totally acceptable in other threads comparison to other 'veg' gurus...
Artificial, unnatural methods, whether in the form of steroids or anything else, by definition, exact a penalty later on(steroids for example damage testes etc.). It makes far better sense to try natural methods which have no nasty side-effects in the future. Besides, muscles were designed by evolution to be used in natural ways. So, the closer we imitate evolutionary designs the better off we are.
Also, photos are useless for determining how fast people age, as not only aspects like AGEs in foods are important, but also peoples' individual genetics/lifestyles etc. - all of which mean that photos cannot be considered remotely reliable .
your double standard is always using conveniences or confusion against things that present conflicting successful arguments. If you had a photo of a caveman lifting a car like our current strongmen you would probably plaster it all over the site. Just like that article that blew up in terms of proving modern training poor when in reality it was all the genetic and nutritional things we can all agree on. When it doubt throw some completely unprovable monkey wrench into any well argued point.
the idea that all photos arn't reliable as information is just nonsense, this coming from someone who actually said things like "well I've heard reports on (from RPD message boards? from uncle charlie?) of instintos looking healthier than primal dieters at American potlucks" and actually mean it seriously as an argument.
That's just childish as usual - besides, it's foolish to assume that any particular photo is a valid example, as there are 100s of other gurus with similiar physiques - in other words, if you honestly believe DeVany on the strength of that photo, then, to be consistent, you must believe in every other guru that has similiar photos with great physiques. Now that's just gullible as hell.
. As for that, I merely made that comment as I'm familiar with that person in the past years and he was least likely of all people to make outlandish comments, given his past. More to the point, I have frequently come across Primal Dieters with severe health-problems from raw dairy etc., and my own experience re primal diets(and instinctoish phases re raw high fruit/low meat diets), so all that is all in full agreement with the claim.
-
RPD as defined on this board as a tool for contemporary health cannot be in line with instincto philosophy which almost by definition is 100% 'how the world works' making all other methodologies of eating wrong or at the very least inferior. Similar to hygiene philosophy it defies all known therapies, and all knowledge one could glean from studying others or sharing information. Nevermind the fact that it also cannot stand up to basic criticism referencing the habits of wild animals or the fact that modern instinctos even can reject basic food sources known to have the highest nutrition. Even by the gurus standards from tropical fruits to insects to various organ meats and blood and choose preferences of taste that have nothing to do with nutrition..
obviously people here eat according to some instinctual fell towards foods, the issues is whther they can follow their instincts to create ideal ratios of health for them or if other means and knowledge can improve health.
The bias is quite reverse, you cannot even see all the factual errors and misinterpretations here which I have already clarified. I actually worked from one of the top fashion magazines in the world, I'm very knowledgeable about what can be done with photos. I never said photos were signs that someone was healthy, I just merely posted a photo of someone and you drew a bunch of conclusion because you obviously have hang-ups about your own issues. I already mentioned people could do their own research from there and check out the guys videos (which cannot be photo-shopped and only enhanced by makeup and not what is known in the photo business as 'shaping' or essentially form changing) and interact with him in person. on some level if someone is following a natural diet, their outward appearance - especially in age - is an indicator to be considered. The very fact that you are defending that remark about how people appear at potlucks - that you didn't even experience first hand - is what proves the double standard. If that needs to be spelled out, you are judging peoples health by how someone else perceived them, and not even acknowledging what their previous health situations were in exactly how you are claiming younger bodybuilders looked well presumably only when their natural advantages were working for them.
Since you seem to still after 3-4 topics and countless back and forth just group again ALL strength training in terms of isolated barbel curls in the mirror, and not conceded a single point (except backtracking here with saying paleo man could possibly equal modern athletes) I feel no need to further engage with you on this issue. Enjoy your vacation and send back tons of photos!
-
I wonder where humans sense of smell ranks for mammals, primates? I would assume humans evolved in a manner that their sense of smell greatly diminished in place so other higher functioning (pattern recognition, ability to read, etc..) mechanisms could develop.
60% of olfactory receptor genes are pseudogenes in humans as compared to 30 and 20% in other primates and mice respectively. This indeed means that mice have roughly twice the number of active olfactory receptors as we have. This diminished sense of smell seems to correlate with the acquisition of trichromatic vision and later on development of our big brain during our evolutionary path with more and more olfactory receptor genes becoming non functional as other capabilities were acquired.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020033
I still wonder how eating instincto in the wild, where it needs to take place for it to be taken seriously, would change the intake of the diet. Perhaps raw zero carb would rule in the wild. And in the wild you may adhere to your other instinctive practices which also must necessarily be adhered to so that the diet part is maximized. Like defecating instinctively, being naked, masturbating, etc...
I think that what ruled the food intake was its availability. In Nature there are rarely several different foods available simultaneously at the same spot. Even once we became hunters there was usually one kill of one species by the end of the day, when successful. In other words there is usually nothing to select by smell among several or better many available meats, fishs etc as assumed in instincto dogma. We had to either eat the only food available or nothing.
The instincto practice of selecting food by smell has little to do with how things work in nature. It's a sheer fad of civilized man.
-
The instincto practice of selecting food by smell has little to do with how things work in nature. It's a sheer fad of civilized man.
Somehow, Burger healed his own cancer by turning raw at the beginning. So he must have done something right. Do you have the details on that?
-
I agree, GS
Burger has worked out the RAW PALEO concept more than 40 years ago and applied it to himself to recover from a deadly larynx cancer. Mainstream medicine and treatments left him little chances of long term survival and this is what made him to question the pertinence of standard diet and look in a rational way for a more appropriate one. Other concepts such as his theory of useful viruses or bacteria are also very remarkable.
As I said before, this part of his work is by itself a most remarkable feat. The problem is with his "theory" about "instincts".
-
By the way, the guru now tries to wrap his crap about his supposed "alimentary instinct that results in perfectly balanced diet" into (unfortunately misunderstood) complex systems science language since I told him about it, rather than the old fashioned (also misunderstood) neodarwinist terms in his former version.
The trouble is that the concepts of instinct and emergence are mutually exclusive too.
This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.
Dear Alphagruis,
Since you have all the space for you on this thread, and obviously a lot of time to write numerous posts, could you please explain us exactly how the theories of self-organized complex systems and in particular the concept of emergence exclude the notion of Instinct?
I hope this time you would not evade the issue and will succeed in giving a logical and relevant explanation - understandable by those you call in French "les ignares". For, as far as I know, all your previous explanations failed to convince anyone, just as your regular reluctance to “repeat what already said”. To reiterate over and over again incomprehensible explanations could evidently not push the debate forward.
As a matter of fact, I am facing the following dilemma: either I have an IQ much inferior than yours and I’m therefore unable to follow you, or your explanations are truly impenetrable. In both cases, the solution would be to write, this time, something graspable to everyone.
So, please, take the trouble to explain your arguments in a sufficiently clear and comprehensive (and polite -X) manner, so that common mortals could catch it. In case you don’t, I’d be forced to admit that your beliefs aren’t verbalisable, which would be unfortunate for a professional scientist.
G-C Burger
To all : As I am since long ago registered on the red, or black, or even infra-red list of Alphagruis, could another contributor craving to understand something repeat the same request in case mine does not actually receive response?
-
For, as far as I know, all your previous explanations failed to convince anyone, just as your regular reluctance to “repeat what already said”. To reiterate over and over again incomprehensible explanations could evidently not push the debate forward.
Did you all want us to jump in and say yes we agree with Alphagruis? His explanations this last week were quit remarkable to me (though I did not comment on them, but am now) and further pushed me away from instincto. And to assume that since nobody voluntarily made their approval of his remarks known in thread meant that his remarks were "impenetrable" seems to me like an excuse as to not address his remarks or at least concede some points at some level.
Another issue I have with instincto is that say we have one person who is on a ketogenic diet (very high fat low protein, token amounts of carbs). Their body would be burning fat very efficiently and many people have reported that they crave fat when following such a diet. I noticed this as well when I was high fat. Would someone following a ketogenic diet ever have their instincts take over so that it reverses to a very high vegetation diet like the optimal instincto diet you touched on.
I think the initial conditions for starting instincto will lead you to the extremes, either very high fat or very high carb intake, the latter of which you have found yourself in. This actually makes so much sense to me now - its just a simple problem of gravitating to a diet which your body will feel the need to get the most energy from. The tipping point is just very heavily in favor of carbohydrate consumption as we are very much addicted to sweet fruits. Say as a guess that all diets with initial carb intake of 10% or more will lead to an instincto diet with your very high vegetation diet and diets less than 10% carbs will lead to an instincto diet with very high fat consumption.
-
I totally agree, I find all of alphagruis' posts to be very easily readable (especially for a non-english native) and fairly unbiased dissections of blatant contradictions. The fact that there is some sarcasm and personal jabs here in there is typical and has been present on all sides in these arguments. As pointed out (by alpha and others), extremely complex statements that err on the side of instincto never seem to be confusing.
let it be noted, I chopped all my criticisms into fortune cookie fragments, and still never got a response despite the (edited) call to clarify, yet talken walnuten en Deutsche was apparently top priority.
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38617/#msg38617
-
Hi kd!
Sorry that I wrote some posts not only in English, but also in German. Gcb wrote that he perhaps will understand me better if I write my posts in both languages. It was discourteous on my part to write one post only in German. Gcb wrote in German that he is busy during the next days and that he will answer later on. Perhaps he forgot to write this in English too.
>>talken walnuten en Deutsche
That sounds funny but I´m not sure that I understand. Could you please translate this for me or say it in other words?
-
KD, PaleoDonk,
Burger obviously just feigns to not understand neither your criticisms nor mine nor the ones of anybody else. Because he cannot retort to or argue against them. Nothing's new in this respect. He behaved similarly on the French forum, diverting systematically the discussion to not address the points put forward by his interlocutors . He is used to this perverse strategy which is a typical feature of this and other gurus.
Ridiculous behaviour (he seems to be the only one who doesn't "understand" except of course his rare remaining followers such as Iguana ;D ) and sheer hypocrisy that already put an end to my "scientific" debate with him since long.
The criticisms I had in mind above do of course by no means need any knowledge of complex systems science. Everybody can understand them. This is even so true that many features of them were arrived at by an ex-instincto named Jean-Claude Catry several years before me and a series of discussions with him helped me tremendously in clarifying what's wrong with instincto. Jean-Claude is certainly not a scientist with a background in complex systems science. He is a French rawfoodist who settled on Saltspring, a small island in Canadian waters off Vancouver, and there learned a lot about the former culture and way of life of natives and what might helped them to stay in much better health than civilized man. As far as I'm concerned I'm just a scientist who happened to be in a position to later on acknowledge that instincto dogma failure finds actually a very nice explanation in terms of recently developed complex systems theory.
BTW thanks Jean Claude, I learned a lot from you.
-
Did you all want us to jump in and say yes we agree with Alphagruis? His explanations this last week were quit remarkable to me (though I did not comment on them, but am now) and further pushed me away from instincto. And to assume that since nobody voluntarily made their approval of his remarks known in thread meant that his remarks were "impenetrable" seems to me like an excuse as to not address his remarks or at least concede some points at some level.
I totally agree, I find all of alphagruis' posts to be very easily readable (especially for a non-english native) and fairly unbiased dissections of blatant contradictions. The fact that there is some sarcasm and personal jabs here in there is typical and has been present on all sides in these arguments. As pointed out (by alpha and others), extremely complex statements that err on the side of instincto never seem to be confusing.
Of course, I did not speak of Alphagruis recent posts which I find, as you do, perfectly clear and logical (the constant insults aside). My request concerns the fundamentals of Alphagruis argument, that is to say the demonstration which would show evidence that the concept of instinct is incompatible with the theories of self-organized complex systems and in particular the concept of emergence.
Since just about everything Alphagruis writes is inferred from this principle and since his conclusions do not fit my actual observations, it is imperative to review more closely the virtues of the starting point.
Please excuse also my difficulty in answering you, but my responses are conditioned by the above question to Alphagruis. I will answer when given a clear explanation about the inconsistency he declares to see between the theories of complex systems and the concept of instinct. This will include a clearer definition of this concept, which is central to most of your questions and objections.
Burger obviously just feigns to not understand neither your criticisms nor mine nor the ones of anybody else. Because he cannot retort to or argue against them. Nothing's new in this respect. He behaved similarly on the French forum, diverting systematically the discussion to not addess the points put forward by his interlocutors . He is used to this perverse strategy which is a typical feature of this and other gurus.
Ridiculous behaviour (he seems to be the only one who doesn't "understand" except of course his rare remaining followers such as Iguana and sheer hypocrisy that already put an end to my "scientific" debate with him since long.
Alphagruis: my request is sincere, I’m trying to understand your point of view and I only find arguments going in the opposite direction. It is therefore logical to consider the starting point of your arguments for us to agree on the follow-up. I’m still waiting for your reply.
-
Alphagruis: my request is sincere
Sure Burger, sure.
Obviously you are sincere ;D
-
Yes, I'm indeed sincere and I still wait for your explanations :P. If you are unable to provide any, it’s either that your standpoint is baseless or you are yourself deceitful.
-
If you are unable to provide any, it’s either that your standpoint is baseless or you are yourself deceitful.
Error of reasoning Burger :o
If I'm unable to provide any it may also be that it's for instance because I've eaten too much sauerkraut or butter today.
And as I eat huge amounts of them every day.... ;D
-
Please accept my condolences... :'(
As soon as your brain will come back to a normal functioning (criterion = -v lower insult output), I'm sure you'll be able >D to give me the much-awaited explanations...
I hope, I'll learn a lot from you.
Thanking you in advance ! 8)
-
Maybe an example could help to understand? Take our supposed adaptation to fruit. One could argue that not the primates adapted to the fruits, but that the fruits adapted to the primates (or more general to animals) because the fruits "want" their seeds to be spread by animals. One could argue that fruits and animals adapted to each other. Possibly not (only) an instinct leads us to fruits but (also) the fruits developed characteristics that are perceived by certain animals as attractive (pleasant smell, flavor, colour). Could this be an example of why the concept of instinct is critizised by you, alphagruis? BTW, an adaptation of fruits to us and to our preferences could be a further reason why fruits have a more prominent and a more pleasant fragrance for us than veggies usually have. The concept of "instinct" cannot explain this difference: Both, fruits and veggies, are needed by us and both are healthy for us (at least according to instincto); nevertheless fruits are more attractive to us regarding smell, flavour and colour.
(Is my English understandable?)
Man könnte argumentieren, dass nicht die Primaten sich an die Früchte anpassten, sondern dass die Früchte sich an die Primaten oder, allgemeiner, an die Tiere anpassten, da die Früchte ein "Interesse" daran haben, dass ihre Samen durch die Tiere verbreitet werden. Man könnte also argumentieren, dass Früchte und Tiere sich einander angepasst haben. Möglicherweise führt nicht (nur) ein Instinkt uns zu den Früchten, sondern die Früchte entwickelten (darüber hinaus) Merkmale, die von bestimmten Tieren als anziehend wahrgenommen werden (angenehmer Duft, köstlicher Geschmack, Farben). Dass die Früchte sich an uns und unsere Vorlieben anpassten, könnte auch einer der Gründe dafür sein, weswegen Früchte einen auffallenderen und köstlicheren Duft für uns haben, als Gemüse ihn normalerweise haben. Das Konzept des Instinktes kann diesen Unterschied nicht erklären: Gemäß Instincto benötigen wir sowohl Früchte als auch Gemüse, Grüngemüse inklusive, und beides ist gesund für uns. Dennoch ist die Anziehung, die Früchte mittels Geruch und Geschmack auf uns ausüben, weit stärker.
-
RPD as defined on this board as a tool for contemporary health cannot be in line with instincto philosophy which almost by definition is 100% 'how the world works' making all other methodologies of eating wrong or at the very least inferior. Similar to hygiene philosophy it defies all known therapies, and all knowledge one could glean from studying others or sharing information. Nevermind the fact that it also cannot stand up to basic criticism referencing the habits of wild animals or the fact that modern instinctos even can reject basic food sources known to have the highest nutrition. Even by the gurus standards from tropical fruits to insects to various organ meats and blood and choose preferences of taste that have nothing to do with nutrition..
The point I made re palaeoman being at least equal to or better, performance-wise than modern athletes, is not contested by the vast majority of palaeoanthrologists, whether in the form of John Shea or Loren Cordain etc. That was my main point and pretty pointless to even dispute, given the favourable response by such palaeo-oriented scientists.
As for Instincto, it is perfectly in line with rawpalaeo ideas-beliefs re going back to nature, more natural methods, rawpalaeo foods etc. As for the issue of instinct/taste, I partially agree with it. That is, from my own experience, I've been drawn to eat healthier foods like raw wild game, with instincts that clearly feel somewhat different from the unnatural, addictive cravings I have sometimes had for specific cooked/processed foods. I think if one was in the wild, an instincto lifestyle would probably work, as even if one developed an instinctive too great a liking for sweet fruits, say, the environment could not provide enough such sweet fruits for a consistent diet extremely high in sweet fruits, in the long-term, so that one would anyway be eating a more natural diet.
Re the photos, I am stating this also as part of my own experience. Photos of me prior to this diet gave a false impression of joyfulness and therefore seemingly good health despite my being in great pain at the time, whereas photos of me a bit into rawpalaeo (a few months or a year into the diet) show me quite a bit worse off in some cases re looking a bit miserable, despite my feeling a hell of a lot better than before at the time. Same goes when seeing other people in person even. For example, it's known that fat women can look younger due to the fat obscuring wrinkles. And then there's botox etc. etc. So, it's not merely a question of photos/photoshopping but appearances in general being far too superficial to be relied upon. Ultimately, every single rawpalaeo beginner should solely be concerned with "how is this diet affecting me?" rather than relying on others' good looks or individual genetics(genes do seem to affect longevity/aging to some extent) as a basis to judge a diet.
As for providing my own photos of my recent holiday, that would be dishonest as that would imply that I always looked like that all year round. Being in the outdoors and highly active like this would naturally make me look a little too good and I wouldn't want someone to be influenced that way.
-
Maybe an example could help to understand? Take our supposed adaptation to fruit. One could argue that not the primates adapted to the fruits, but that the fruits adapted to the primates (or more general to animals) because the fruits "want" their seeds to be spread by animals. One could argue that fruits and animals adapted to each other. Possibly not (only) an instinct leads us to fruits but (also) the fruits developed characteristics that are perceived by certain animals as attractive (pleasant smell, flavor, colour). Could this be an example of why the concept of instinct is critizised by you, alphagruis? BTW, an adaptation of fruits to us and to our preferences could be a further reason why fruits have a more prominent and a more pleasant fragrance for us than veggies usually have. The concept of "instinct" cannot explain this difference: Both, fruits and veggies, are needed by us and both are healthy for us (at least according to instincto); nevertheless fruits are more attractive to us regarding smell, flavour and colour.
Yes I agree absolutely, Hanna. This is one nice example of what I meant when I recalled that, contrary to Burger's assumptions, it is wrong to believe that nature does optimize (or has to optimize) something like an innate capability or instinct to balance our diet. Many plants have developped attractive fruits by means of flavors (first of all sweetness) and odors because it much better ensures the spread of their seeds in contrast to the other parts of their organism which they have to prevent from being eaten by synthesizing bitter toxic chemicals. We have to cope with this and it was usually not a problem because of (among other effects) former environmental constraints that prevented us to be fooled by the plant fruits attraction all year round (impossible to gorge on them over a prolonged period) and thus we were forced to get at other food sources such as veggies or also and better learn to hunt or fish and thus get by force or "self-organization of the whole ecosystem" an overall more appropriate diet. All this and many other subtle interactions "conspired" to ensure health of all components of a healthy natural ecosystem and made it precisely a sustainable self-organized complex system. Health or nutritional regulation is an example what we call in complex systems theory an emergent property that cannot by nature be reduced to the properties of any of its components. No need to invoke something as an "instinct". It's even absolutely vain epistemologically.
-
Please accept my condolences... :'(
As soon as your brain will come back to a normal functioning (criterion = -v lower insult output), I'm sure you'll be able >D to give me the much-awaited explanations...
I hope, I'll learn a lot from you.
Thanking you in advance ! 8)
Be patient Burger, I'll possibly teach you ...
a lot more in my own ways ;D
-
Yes I agree absolutely, Hanna. This is one nice example of what I meant when I recalled that, contrary to Burger's assumptions, it is wrong to believe that nature does optimize (or has to optimize) something like an innate capability or instinct to balance our diet. Many plants have developped attractive fruits by means of flavors (first of all sweetness) and odors because it much better ensures the spread of their seeds in contrast to the other parts of their organism which they have to prevent from being eaten by synthesizing bitter toxic chemicals. We have to cope with this and it was usually not a problem because of (among other effects) former environmental constraints that prevented us to be fooled by the plant fruits attraction all year round (impossible to gorge on them over a prolonged period) and thus we were forced to get at other food sources such as veggies or also and better learn to hunt or fish and thus get by force or "self-organization of the whole ecosystem" an overall more appropriate diet. All this and many other subtle interactions "conspired" to ensure health of all components of a healthy natural ecosystem and made it precisely a sustainable self-organized complex system. Health or nutritional regulation is an example what we call in complex systems theory an emergent property that cannot by nature be reduced to the properties of any of its components. No need to invoke something as an "instinct". It's even absolutely vain epistemologically.
It seems to me this argument has already been answered, at least partially:
Here is a concrete fact: three months of wild mangos in the Philippines. Here in France, about 3 months of figs, in the rainforest of Borneo several months of wild cempedak or wild durian and so on.
These fruits and many others thus do not appear just the time for someone to barely overfeed and then disappear in order to avoid any serious nutriment’s overload to animals and hominids excessively found of sugar. One day under (or on) a fruit tree is enough for an animal to dangerously overfeed if there’s nothing to limits its ration. It is undoubtedly for this reason that the emergent function ensuring nutritional regulation includes a large intrinsic part: the animal limits itself spontaneously with every natural product, because there are frequent situations where the natural products are available in amounts sufficient to endanger its physiological balance and temporary capacity to flee or respond to a predator’s attack. This intrinsic part of the regulation appears by various alliesthesic mechanisms (sense of smell, taste, repletion, dislike, etc): it is precisely what I call the alimentary instinct.
It’s in my turn to ask you a question: are there during the year, in the Philippines, periods without wild fruit? Let us point out for Alphagruis that the existence of such periods does not exclude at all the utility – neither in terms of survival capacity and evolution nor in terms of emergent functions – of regulation mechanisms ensuring nutritional balance during each specific fruit season.
I suppose that since animals and hominids have been exposed to the fact Alphagruis underlines for hundreds millions years, it is logical to consider there’s is a reciprocal adaptation (or coevolution), as pointed out by Hanna:
One could argue that fruits and animals adapted to each other.
-
Nevertheless there could be a tendency for us to be "fooled" by the fruits and to eat too much of them, especially (or at least) if we eat cultivated varieties ("gezüchtete Sorten"), as we generally do.
-
Sure, that's why we should always prefer the wildest varieties and be careful with cultivated fruits!
Anyway, at least for me, there's still an automatic regulation. Sometimes I get bored to eat fruits and then I eagerly look for something else to eat in case fruits are the only foodstuff available around.
Francois
-
My latest instinct is to stop eating animal meat for a day today.
So today I've had:
- coconuts
- guavas
- green mango
- green orange variety
- avocados
Maybe I will regain my urge to eat animal food tomorrow.
The trick is to not fall for the sugar bomb fruits.
-
Nevertheless there could be a tendency for us to be "fooled" by the fruits and to eat too much of them, especially (or at least) if we eat cultivated varieties ("gezüchtete Sorten"), as we generally do.
Hanna,
The so called " partial answer" to my argument has already been commented on before. It is either irrelevant or just plain wrong and ridiculously contradictory with what Burger "teached" us up to now. Let's comment a bit more.
Figs are available 3 months in France (and even whole year round if dried ;D) but nobody except foolish instinctos (when there were still some of them ;)) ate them up to so-called "stop" whenever they wanted to or their supposed "instinct" told them. This availabilty of figs is a sheer neolithic phenomenon and normal people precisely have adapted to it by culture and know perfectly well that they have to restrict their intake willfully. So this is absolutely irrelevant to what happened in nature or paleotimes.
In nature or paleotimes animals or man do or did by no means nicely "limit spontaneously" the intake of sweet or fatty foods to their strict, according to intincto dogma "present nutritional needs". They rather eat as much as they can usually up to repletion. Pygmees for instance have been observed to gorge on wild honey when they are lucky enough to get at it. There would be satiety signals preventing them to gorge if the pygmee had just a meal before but a normal pygmee would then not have gone and look for honeycomb with the risks of the confrontation with the bees that don't like so much their honey to be stolen ;) Satiety signals do not usually just by themselves have to ensure limited intake. Things are much more involved and subtle. We have obviously evolved to adapt to a world where very sweet or fatty foods were most of the time fairly difficult to obtain, the only serious way to explain the reality of (too, in civilized world) strong attraction towards such foods
The pygmees of course do not "need" presently so much sugar and get then certainly a huge insulin spike and become sleepy with temporary "impaired capacity to flee or respond to a predator's attack". But this is not a daily phenomenon with strong statistical weight in terms of being killed or having their sugar regulation machinery impaired on the one hand and on the other hand permits them to store the excess of nutriments in the form of fat for less fortunate days. BTW an organism has nothing like "present or instantaneous often rapidly varying from day to day or hour to hour needs" in terms of nutriments as repeatedly invoked in instincto dogma. Pure civilized man fad. So there is also no reason to invoke the existence of supposed "finely tuned instinctive stop" signals during each individual meal. Animals are actually equipped with powerful biochemical means to adapt to both temporary excess or lack of food or nutriments. Nutritional regulation and balance has just to be ensured and take place over many weeks or months and actually a whole year period. Obviously alimentary regulation in nature is a very subtle and complex phenomenon that can by no means be reduced even approximately to a regulation based on encoded sensory signals or some mysterious "instinct" attached to an animal.
Moreover, as well as others, I've already commented briefly on the ridiculous contradictions in Burger's recent and former statements. Confronted to the overwhelming evidence, Burger now perversely feigns to call "alimentary instinct" the trivial fact well known since long before Burger that there is an "intrinsic part" in food regulation and intake such as the attractions or repulsions or encoded satiety signals. In other words in his new version his so-called "alimentary instinct" just no longer ensures nutritional regulation and health. This converts instincto de facto into a plain triviality and I challenge the rare remaining instinctos to demonstrate what's the usefullness or purpose of further invoking such a ridiculous "instinct" ;D
And this new form of instincto would have absolutely nothing to do and be completely at odds with the former spectacular and arrogant instincto claims and version (the very heart of instincto message actually) such as stated Burger's Anopsology and which is also actually the very reason of instincto failure.
Burger's teaching to instinctos:
17. Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.
Finally for charity reason I won't further insist, but what's emergent in this respect in nature cannot be a supposed "function ensuring nutritional regulation" but is merely the specific order in the form of a healthy (or ill) organism (with thus balanced (or not) nutrition) embedded in a healthy (or ill) ecosystem.
Note also that I do not of course deny the « utility » of sensory and satiety signals as Burger again feigns to believe. They just do not and do not even have by themselves to ensure food intake regulation in nature as instincto dogma postulates, not even during a single fruit season.
-
The pygmees of course do not "need" presently so much sugar and get then certainly a huge insulin spike and become sleepy with temporary "impaired capacity to flee or respond to a predator's attack".
Hihihaha..
But Let me play your devil´s advocate: You ignored that the pygmee´s instinct is "denatured" because the pygmees are no rawfoodists, let alone instinctos. So their instinct cannot function properly. Is that correct, Iguana? ;)
What does your diet look like in practice, Alpha? Are there deliberate differences between your current diet and an instincto type of diet?
-
Hihihaha..
But Let me play your devil´s advocate: You ignored that the pygmee´s instinct is "denatured" because the pygmees are no rawfoodists, let alone instinctos. So their instinct cannot function properly. Is that correct, Iguana? ;)
What does your diet look like in practice, Alpha? Are there deliberate differences between your current diet and an instincto type of diet?
Pygmees eat actually a lot of raw meat. They eat what's available locally as it has been 99.995% of our evolutionary path and will be in future. If an "instinct" were too exist I would bet that it is much less "denaturated" in pygmees than western rawfoodists and instinctos. HGs were generally in much better health than instinctos in spite of a fraction of cooked food in their diet. Moreover instinctos routinely overeat honey or sweet food in spite of their 100% raw diet.
Moreover if there is something that cannot be explained away by a "denaturated or wicked instinct" , please let me know, Hanna :)
My diet is Raw Paleo with fatty meat and organs, fish ,shellfish, eggs etc with a modest part of fruit and plant food (essentially greens plus some nuts) in winter and more in summer. Fruit is rarely tropical. Typically around 1800 kcal a day only even in case of important physical activity. I know in advance what kind of food might be appropriate. Nothing to do with an "instinct" IMO, just initial training.
-
>>Pygmees eat actually a lot of raw meat.
I didn´t know that.
-
I didn’t want to interfere anymore with your holly debunking mission, but your posts contain such crocks of shit (amongst interesting and remarkable info) that I feel compelled to reestablish some facts.
Hanna,
The so called " partial answer" to my argument has already been commented on before. It is either irrelevant or just plain wrong and ridiculously contradictory with what Burger "teached" us up to now.
I fail to see any ridiculous contradiction between what Burger "taught" before and "teaches" now. Since you never followed his teaching but rather those of FvB, I wonder how you can write such a statement.
Figs are available 3 months in France (and even whole year round if dried ;D) but nobody except foolish instinctos (when there were still some of them ;)) ate them up to so-called "stop" whenever they wanted to or their supposed "instinct" told them.
May I remind you that you were one of those “foolish instinctos” for several years (shame on you… :'() and that you ate figs up to the “so called stop” along with me for weeks without the slightest trouble appearing .
This availabilty of figs is a sheer neolithic phenomenon and normal people precisely have adapted to it by culture and know perfectly well that they have to restrict their intake willfully. So this is absolutely irrelevant to what happened in nature or paleotimes.
Are you so sure there were no fruits in hominid’s environment during the Paleolithic era? How comes there’s a lot of different fruits in the Amazonian rain forest as well as wild rambutans, durians, jacks and cempedaks in the Southeast Asian rain forest inhabited by apes? “Normal people”… do you consider people on SWD as normal and RPDers as abnormal morons? Of course, when you eat bread, pizzas, raviolis, chips and cheeseburgers you’re not attracted by figs. These guys don’t even have to willfully restrict their intake of figs (or other fruits): they simply can’t eat it in bigger amounts than tiny samples.
In nature or paleotimes animals or man do or did by no means nicely "limit spontaneously" the intake of sweet or fatty foods to their strict, according to intincto dogma "present nutritional needs". They rather eat as much as they can usually up to repletion.
Even supposing you’re right (which I hope you’ll grant me the right to doubt) how do they know they reach repletion, hey? Do they also eat so called “medicinal plants” up to repletion?
Pygmees for instance have been observed to gorge on wild honey when they are lucky enough to get at it. There would be satiety signals preventing them to gorge if the pygmee had just a meal before but a normal pygmee would then not have gone and look for honeycomb with the risks of the confrontation with the bees that don't like so much their honey to be stolen ;) Satiety signals do not usually just by themselves have to ensure limited intake. Things are much more involved and subtle.
Ok, would you like to go and live with them to experience their diet and way of live?
We have obviously evolved to adapt to a world where very sweet or fatty foods were most of the time fairly difficult to obtain, the only serious way to explain the reality of (too, in civilized world) strong attraction towards such foods
Big animals have always been very easy to catch, skin and eat, isn’t it? How comes hence that we have a very strong attraction for their meat?
The pygmees of course do not "need" presently so much sugar and get then certainly a huge insulin spike and become sleepy with temporary "impaired capacity to flee or respond to a predator's attack". But this is not a daily phenomenon with strong statistical weight in terms of being killed or having their sugar regulation machinery impaired on the one hand and on the other hand permits them to store the excess of nutriments in the form of fat for less fortunate days.
Right, they may eat more than immediately needed and store it for tomorrow. I too do it sometimes. What’s the problem if there’s no predator around?
BTW an organism has nothing like "present or instantaneous often rapidly varying from day to day or hour to hour needs" in terms of nutriments as repeatedly invoked in instincto dogma. Pure civilized man fad. So there is also no reason to invoke the existence of supposed "finely tuned instinctive stop" signals during each individual meal. Animals are actually equipped with powerful biochemical means to adapt to both temporary excess or lack of food or nutriments. Nutritional regulation and balance has just to be ensured and take place over many weeks or months and actually a whole year period.
Yes, I think your’re not completely wrong here, at least in regard to organisms in perfect health. The name “instinctotherapy” means it is intended for ill persons (as we civilized are all more or less) and in such cases it has been found very advantageous to fill as much as possible the instantaneous needs of those poor “pure civilized “ women and men.
Moreover, as well as others, I've already commented briefly on the ridiculous contradictions in Burger's recent and former statements. Confronted to the overwhelming evidence, Burger now perversely feigns to call "alimentary instinct" the trivial fact well known since long before Burger that there is an "intrinsic part" in food regulation and intake such as the attractions or repulsions or encoded satiety signals. In other words in his new version his so-called "alimentary instinct" just no longer ensures nutritional regulation and health. This converts instincto de facto into a plain triviality and I challenge the rare remaining instinctos to demonstrate what's the usefullness or purpose of further invoking such a ridiculous "instinct" ;D And this new form of instincto would have absolutely nothing to do and be completely at odds with the former spectacular and arrogant instincto claims and version (the very heart of instincto message actually) such as stated Burger's Anopsology and which is also actually the very reason of instincto failure.
Uuhhhhg?
Finally for charity reason I won't further insist, but what's emergent in this respect in nature cannot be a supposed "function ensuring nutritional regulation" but is merely the specific order in the form of a healthy (or ill) organism (with thus balanced (or not) nutrition) embedded in a healthy (or ill) ecosystem.
What to do then if we are ill at the start and have no way to be embedded anymore into a healthy ecosystem?
Note also that I do not of course deny the « utility » of sensory and satiety signals as Burger again feigns to believe. They just do not and do not even have by themselves to ensure food intake regulation in nature as instincto dogma postulates, not even during a single fruit season.
And simultaneously you maintain that these sensory and satiety signals are not an intrinsic part of an instinct?
HGs were generally in much better health than instinctos in spite of a fraction of cooked food in their diet.
Do you expect individuals grown on cooked diet, wheat and dairy for several generation and even often having been deprived of breastfeeding to miraculously regain a health state comparable to HG having been subject to an intense natural selection up to the latest generation? Don’t forget that many instinctos were in a very bad shape before and would be in hospital bed or even dead by now had they not switched to instinctive nutrition.
What do you think of the health state of GCB offsprings who have almost always been eating instincto?
Moreover instinctos routinely overeat honey or sweet food in spite of their 100% raw diet.
On what base do you determine the threshold to overeating sweet foodstuff ? How do you know they overeat sweet food? How comes that the diabetics swapping to instinctive nutrition see their symptoms disappear?
My diet is Raw Paleo with fatty meat and organs, fish ,shellfish, eggs etc with a modest part of fruit and plant food (essentially greens plus some nuts) in winter and more in summer. Fruit is rarely tropical. Typically around 1800 kcal a day only even in case of important physical activity. I know in advance what kind of food might be appropriate. Nothing to do with an "instinct" IMO, just initial training.
About the same than mine except that I probably eat more fruits than you (I ever ate a lot of fruits and sweet stuff, even when I was on cooked diet). After the usual initial instincto training and following several years of practice, I also know most of the time in advance (instinctively, mind you!) what food will be appropriate. But anyway, my nose located just over my mouth is there to check what comes in. A second check takes place in my mouth.
-
I told you repeatedly before, Iguana
Don't be so angry.... No need, everybody here thinks you're right ;D
-
>>On what base do you determine the threshold to overeating sweet foodstuff ? How do you know they overeat sweet food?
I DO overeat as I have already written. If I am NOT accustomed to eat much fruit, then there are early "instinctive" stops when I eat fruit. But if I got into the the habit of eating much fruit (for example because I had little else to eat than fruit for a while, with the consequence that the instinctive stops appeared later and later!) then there are usually only late "instinctive" stops, even if there is other tasty food available to me. The consequences are, for example, mild allergic symptoms in the summer. I have no allergic symptoms at all if I willfully restrict my fruit intake. I am not the only one whose allergic symptoms disappear completely only if he/she willfully restricts his/her fruit intake.
>>How comes that the diabetics swapping to instinctive nutrition see their symptoms disappear?
Because they "instinctively" use their REASON/common sense and are cautious when eating fruit?
-
Alpha, do you know what kinds of meat the pygmies heat and what kinds of meat they eat raw? That would be interesting to know! Google didn´t tell me...
-
Alpha, do you know what kinds of meat the pygmies heat and what kinds of meat they eat raw? That would be interesting to know! Google didn´t tell me...
I got this information from friends from Cameroun. In fact their wording was rather "pygmies eat a lot of raw or almost raw meat". Rare might be a good description of the "almost raw" one, I'll try to get more information on what part is stricto sensu raw. It's bushmeat such as monkeys and depends strongly on tribe. Insects such as caterpillars, grubs, and other food of animal origin are very important and apparently eaten either plain raw or cooked in various ways.
I think in this respect that instincto teaching also does not distinguish between various cooking methods and so probably demonizes them excessively all. This is OK as far as it makes us to investigate what happens if one abandons completely cooking as most of us do here. A much more balanced view is however necessary to assess the adverse effects of heat on food in various cultures and cooking habits.
I recalled recently some physics of heat generated toxins which shows that their formation increases rapidly with temperature but is not at all absent at room and a fortiori body temperature. So it is not yet clear whether an instincto eating much dried stuff such as dried fruit does better in terms of AGEs intake when compared to pygmee that eat rare steak.
Similarly instincto dogma demonizes seasoning because of a supposedly wicked "instinct". Yet It is most likely that it is much better to eat some vegetables such as cabbage or chicory lightely seasoned with some garlic, olive oil and salt than to gorge systematically on dried bananas or figs instead.
Same with sauerkraut or other fermented vegetables or fishs. Instincto dogma necessarily dismisses them altogether because of the "wicked instinct" nonsense. As expected I could never observe any negative effects with them, on the contrary, when ingested in reasonable quantities.
-
I DO overeat as I have already written. If I am NOT accustomed to eat much fruit, then there are early "instinctive" stops when I eat fruit. But if I got into the the habit of eating much fruit (for example because I had little else to eat than fruit for a while, with the consequence that the instinctive stops appeared later and later!) then there are usually only late "instinctive" stops, even if there is other tasty food available to me. The consequences are, for example, mild allergic symptoms in the summer. I have no allergic symptoms at all if I willfully restrict my fruit intake. I am not the only one whose allergic symptoms disappear completely only if he/she willfully restricts his/her fruit intake.
Hanna, I am SO with you on this!!!!
It is exactly my experience.
When I was eating only animals for months, and then tried some fruit (high quality, ripe organic) I really could not eat much of it.
But with every day that passed with fruits included, I could eat more and more of it.. and finally there was hardly any stop at all!
And I also get this allergic symptoms from sugar (and with sugar I mean natural sugar, like fruits).
I used to be really allergic as a child. It also, back then, worsened with cookies and other sweets. Now I am completely free from symptoms, except when eating sugar.. -\
Inger
-
>>How comes that the diabetics swapping to instinctive nutrition see their symptoms disappear?
Because they "instinctively" use their REASON/common sense and are cautious when eating fruit?
Hanna,
Iguana or Burger since long repeatedly invoke the "instinctive" regulation of instincto to be the key of improvement of various maladies. This is absolute crap since instincto is essentially raw paleo and as this forum and Seignalet's work here in France clearly demonstrate raw paleo is undoubtedly the actual reason of the disappearance of the symptoms.
Here again no need to invoke an "instinct" to account for the facts.
Same hypocrisy when we are told that instinctos are often in bad shape as compared to HGs because of their past of SW diet induced ailments. This argument simply ignores that many of the very young staff running orkos ended up in similar bad shape.
This embarrassing fact is in turn readily explained away by the guru as due to bad practice. ;D
-
Same hypocrisy when we are told that instinctos are often in bad shape as compared to HGs because of their past of SW diet induced ailments. This argument simply ignores that many of the very young staff running orkos ended up in similar bad shape.
Alpagruis,
could you please tell me something more about this cases?
Please.
Inger
-
Alpagruis,
could you please tell me something more about this cases?
Please.
Inger
Inger,
They suffered mainly from deficiencies, emaciation, skin troubles etc. Eating more food of animal origin available didn't cure the deficiencies and B12 shots were indispensable. It is remarkable that this condition takes usually many years on instincto to show up and that these people had access to the "best instincto food" according to Burger himself.
-
Inger,
They suffered mainly from deficiencies, emaciation, skin troubles etc. Eating more food of animal origin available didn't cure the deficiencies and B12 shots were indispensable. It is remarkable that this condition takes usually many years on instincto to show up and that these people had access to the "best instincto food" according to Burger himself.
Hi Alpha,
What kind of skin problems?
BTW, I do not see myself as "instincto" any longer -[.
-
In case of Iguana wouldn't "like" my post in "explain instincto" thread I save a copy here ;)
Ces observations avaient évidemment quelque chose de rassurant : le milieu originel, dont l'instinctothérapie postule l'existence puisqu'il faut bien que notre génétique se soit adaptée à quelque chose de réel, existait heureusement quelque part.
in English
These observations had of course something that was reassuring : the original milieu or environment, whose existence is a basic premise of instinctotherapy since our genetics had necessarily to adapt to something in real world existed indeed somewhere.
Who wrote this about our supposed original environment or tropical paradise ?
Burger himself in 1991 here:
http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/IM43-fruitssauvages.html
BTW our original biotope was in this same article indeed described by Burger as something like the chimps one with plenty of fruit as the basic food.
And oups.....
- today the guru readily labels even the inuit diet as instincto
- we are now told that this nice tale was nothing more but a "joke" and "instinctotherapy" is in fact just an "empirical" method that according to the Burger's "experience" just nicely works.
Hanna, carnivore, folks,
You have to believe Burger on say so, it works. Amen.
Yet, couldn't it be that the whole guru's babble about "instincts" is itself nothing more but a joke ;D
-
Hi Alpha,
What kind of skin problems?
Vitiligo as far as I can remember is an example.
BTW, I do not see myself as "instincto" any longer -[.
I finally got it , Hanna ;)
-
Hanna,
Iguana or Burger since long repeatedly invoke the "instinctive" regulation of instincto to be the key of improvement of various maladies. This is absolute crap since instincto is essentially raw paleo and as this forum and Seignalet's work here in France clearly demonstrate raw paleo is undoubtedly the actual reason of the disappearance of the symptoms.
Here again no need to invoke an "instinct" to account for the facts.
Same hypocrisy when we are told that instinctos are often in bad shape as compared to HGs because of their past of SW diet induced ailments. This argument simply ignores that many of the very young staff running orkos ended up in similar bad shape.
This embarrassing fact is in turn readily explained away by the guru as due to bad practice. ;D
Many indeed don't follow strictly Burger's teachings because the practice is pretty inconvenient and can become expensive (in terms of food supply etc.). But I doubt that any instinct would really help the poor emaciated instinctos who seriously lack calories!
-
Many indeed don't follow strictly Burger's teachings because the practice is pretty inconvenient and can become expensive (in terms of food supply etc.). But I doubt that any instinct would really help the poor emaciated instinctos who seriously lack calories!
Its quite telling that despite the fact that this - other than perhaps cost - should be the worlds easiest way to follow the paleo diet (when mastered the alimentary instinct) with its variety and high quality of food. However that it fails to get even basic nutrition for sustainability or to advance basic fitness. If anything in these threads actually convinced me this was a healthy way to eat, I would eat this way in a heartbeat, it would cause me to give up absolute nothing from a aesthetic viewpoint and would be way easier socially. Information about children growing up with merely adequate nutrition according to the low end of WHO is some kind of proof that a dietary philosophy is most ideal? Truly healthy children raised on ideal levels of food according to our accumulated nutritional science should not even resemble SWD or now the fruitarian children. They should certainly be healthier and more robust than traditional farm raised children.
-
I got this information from friends from Cameroun. In fact their wording was rather "pygmies eat a lot of raw or almost raw meat". Rare might be a good description of the "almost raw" one, I'll try to get more information on what part is stricto sensu raw. It's bushmeat such as monkeys and depends strongly on tribe. Insects such as caterpillars, grubs, and other food of animal origin are very important and apparently eaten either plain raw or cooked in various ways.
Very interesting. yes, more information on that would be great!
-
Many indeed don't follow strictly Burger's teachings because the practice is pretty inconvenient and can become expensive (in terms of food supply etc.). But I doubt that any instinct would really help the poor emaciated instinctos who seriously lack calories!
In case of the ORKOS staff the costs of instincto cannot be invoked as a reason to not follow what they were taught by Burger during years of its very presence everyday ...
I'm quite convinced that these people were precisely those who could follow and indeed did follow Burger's teaching best !
As KD points out the clear-cut failure of even these bona fide instinctos is actually very telling and overwhelming.
-
As KD points out the clear-cut failure of even these bona fide instinctos is actually very telling and overwhelming.
well, I can't conclude that entirely. Its more shocking that based on meeting basically minimal requirements it is being championed as the most healthy for developing children or adults. 100% vegans make the same claims. Its especially confusing when according to the diet, it really should be the most doable and workable of all paleo-restrictive approaches if one had all the listed advantages. Yet it clearly has less long term continuation rate even to systems like PrD which is a total pain in the ass and very restrictive. People can put up with those detoxes and such (no matter how genuine) for years without going back to SWD and yet it is too socially difficult to eat whatever natural food your body instinctive desires? even if that translates tons of fruit and small amounts of tasty raw animal food? Obviously at the very least it should be admitted that not everyone is thriving on such a program, because of the program, as no other explanation makes sense. At the very least, admitting tackling health concerns takes a backseat to any internal clock and is highly increased success by the following of experiences.
-
I don't know if this has been asked before... so here goes...
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU FRENCH GUYS ?
WHAT IS THE PERSONAL GRUDGE BETWEEN ALPHAGRUIS - GCB - IGUANA ?
Maybe you have discussed these publicly in FRENCH, but now do we have to read about it in English too?
Sure, there are disagreements on many points but what I can read from the posts is they are more personal.
Can't you guys see each other in France and have a bloody drink with real blood and just agree to disagree and be friends?
I mean, look, we all found the variations of the fountain of youth in RPD variants,
This means all of you are going to be duking it out with one another for A VERY LONG TIME, MANY MANY YEARS!
Personally, I'd rather read more about how aging on RPD and what to expect. In your 60s, in your 80s. That kind of thing.
Are we going to be sexually active into our 90s?
-
>>WHAT IS IT WITH YOU FRENCH GUYS ?
The problem is that gcb postulated not only an alimentary instinct, but also a "love instinct"... An instinct that brought him to jail.
-
The trouble is that instincto discussion unfortunately can no more be reduced to a calm serene scientific or philosophical debate. This debate is actually fairly outdated because experiment settled the issue since long and demonstrates that instincto as veganism or fruitarianism just doesn't work and is dangerous.
There are already to much victims of Burger's flawed theories about "instincts". In spite of all the evidence Burger, since his release from jail, stubornly tries nevertheless to teach them unchanged to whoever wants to listen to him. This very active proselytism is likely to fool further naive and fragile people because of their impaired health issues and sexual or love life problems. And there are a lot of such people....
Burger's nonsense of instinct in diet has brought too many people in a poor emaciated health state.
Burger's nonsense of instinct in sexuality has brought too many people in a poor mental or psychological state. And it led him to repeatedly rape childrens and so to be sentenced to 15 years as a dangerous pedophile after similar former offenses in Switzerland. In spite of his denial the evidence is overwhelming.
Burger is eagerly looking for a new audience and tribune here or elsewhere. He is an very skilled manipulator. Fortunately people in this forum seem generally smart enough to not likely be fooled by him. But he will succeed sooner or later and most likely end up in jail again.
GS, you must be aware of this background that might seriously drag down this forum's reputation by association. In this respect it is still unclear whether the Raw paleo movement in France will recover from this desastrous amalgam with instincto in a forseeable future.
-
The problem is that gcb postulated not only an alimentary instinct, but also a "love instinct"... An instinct that brought him to jail.
…while some people believe there’s no love… or that love isn’t instinctive but related to self-interest and money…
Seriously, it’s not the “love instinct” which brought GCB to jail, but rather he’s advanced theory about love instinct that disturbs and sparked off an uproar among its detractors. It’s hazardous to judge by media interposed, and even by justice interposed in this field
What’s up with us Europeans (Alpha is Alsatian, Alsace being a small strip of land sandwiched between Germany and France which has been alternatively part of both countries, GCB is a Swiss citizen from Alsatian origin as well and I’m a Swiss citizen too) is that we are preparing for a new war between RPDers rival tribes after civilization has collapsed and all SWDers are dead since there’ll be no more energy source to cook their food neither medicine and technology to keep them alive…(In case it’s not plain clear, I’m just joking here!).
;D ;)
-
I don't know if this has been asked before... so here goes...
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU FRENCH GUYS ?
WHAT IS THE PERSONAL GRUDGE BETWEEN ALPHAGRUIS - GCB - IGUANA ?
Who have always been the great opponents to novel ideas? Holders of the power, holders of the knowledge, idiots and legal institutions, to start with the inquisition.
Alphagruis is certainly a holder of knowledge.
However, both sets of the holders of the knowledge and of the idiots don’t have a null area of intersection. For the laymen, it means that one can be at the same time holder of knowledge, idiot, and even extremely bad-mannered.
Those interested in really knowing what my discoveries and ideas about the sexual and love instinct are can go to my Metapsychanalyse web site (http://sites.google.com/site/metapsychanalyse/home/qu-est-ce-que-la-metapsychanalyse), where two pages expound the media-staged and judicial aspects of the case.
-
In other words, there are people who fear that gcb is on the lookout for followers just to rape the children of his followers again.
Iguana, so you believe in gcb´s innocence?
Gcb, me and many others in this forum do not understand french.
-
Who have always been the great opponents to novel ideas? Holders of the power, holders of the knowledge, idiots and legal institutions, to start with the inquisition.
Alphagruis is certainly a holder of knowledge.
However, both sets of the holders of the knowledge and of the idiots don’t have a null area of intersection. For the laymen, it means that one can be at the same time holder of knowledge, idiot, and even extremely bad-mannered.
Burger,
I'm sure you say that just because you're angry
In fact you secretely "love" me ;D
-
In other words, there are people who fear that gcb is on the lookout for followers just to rape the children of his followers again.
Of course he is on this lookout. There is absolutely no doubt about this and he cleverly disguises this in a courageous struggle of a poor misunderstood discoverer of novel revolutionary ideas against institutional science and power. And this address unfortunately gained audience (mine for instance) in the past because Burger perversely mixes very interesting new ideas indeed (Raw Paleo) and utterly wrong ridiculous babble about instincts.
Note also that history clearly shows that for every outsider who indeed revolutionized science as well as for every criminal put in jail and indeed innocent there are orders of magnitude more outsiders who claimed to revolutionize science yet are just plain wrong or criminals who claimed to be innocent yet are undoubtedly guilty.
Please notice also that, except of course Burger and this fool of Iguana there is nobody here in France who further seriously contends the guru's foolish ideas about instincts and still engage in such a tremendous proselytism. Many of those who ever met Burger bitterly regret it.
So it's hard for him to find new followers here in France and obviously this forum with international audience not a priori aware of the guru's background appears to him to be a formidable opportunity to resume his former criminal activities.
-
In other words, there are people who fear that gcb is on the lookout for followers just to rape the children of his followers again.
Iguana, so you believe in gcb´s innocence?
Gcb, me and many others in this forum do not understand french.
Hanna, I avoid beliefs. I know GCB fairly well, since he was a well known, highly respected, brilliant physicist and musician in Lausanne, our common home town. We lived together in the same house for a few months and he never tried to rape any anyone around! I also know quite well his fellows friends and first pionners of the instincto since the years 60’s. Some are more or less at disagreement with him, but none knowing him well believes he raped anyone. If you happen to know the man, you realize the inanity of such accusations against an idealist not interested at all by money.
For your convenience, here is a rough translation of http://sites.google.com/site/metapsychanalyse/home/qu-est-ce-que-la-metapsychanalyse/metapsychanalyse-et-justice
What is metapsychoanalysis ?
Metapsychoanalysis and Justice
To defend a theory calling the sexual life in question, shaking the dominant taboos, which returns to each one its free will vis-a-vis the morals constraints of the system, wasn’t obviously bound to please everyone. I dearly paid the price, already in Switzerland in the Seventies, and more recently in France by the means a dozen years behind the bars along with a thorough demolition of all I had laboriously built to advance the ideas and their diffusion.
Yes, you’re gonna tell me, but you were condemned for rape of minor, this is not a matter of theory… in any case, there is no smoke without fire. If justice condemns someone, this is not by chance… But the things are not so simple: it is because I developed this radically new approach of the love and sex phenomenon, hustling all kinds of beliefs and attachments, that some people decided to reduce to me to silence. People who had otherwise good reasons to be angry with me, for example a psychopath named J.K. who came to look after himself in my Instincto Center, and who did not understand anything about the theory; he started to spread to the other boarders the idea that the “métapsychanalyse” was an apology of all perversions, wrong behavior, homosexuality, pedophilia… I then kicked him out. He promised war and gained the first battle.
The news were at this time at full light on the Dutroux affair, the overheated media were going obviously to jump on the occasion offered by such a dedicated detractor. My ex-boarder went to find a journalist, Anne-Marie Casteret, known for the denunciation of various scandals. It is undoubtedly her which had started, rightly, the French affair of contaminated blood. It is also her who, certainly wrongly, protested that Justice was mistaken or misled the world in the Toulouse AZF affair, the explosion being due, according to her, to dangerous terrorists. The inanity of these speculations was shown latter on, which has by the way put an end to her journalistic career. To note that Anne-Marie Casteret had already had attacked me and partially demolished in 1989, through an shock article (“the guru who claims to cure AIDS by raw food, in the Event of Thursday”) after which the instinctotherapy was registered in the French list of sects. Condemned to pay a heavy fine to the parents of two young AIDS victims she had publicly revealed the disease, she had a good reason to be angry with me.
At the end of 1996, Anne-Marie Casteret and J.K. were going together to systematically campaign all the families remained in my Center with their children. I could know, in particular thanks to the testimony a German nutritionist, all about the pressures exerted to obtain so-called testimonies. It was absolutely necessary to eliminate the dangerous guru of the pedophilia, this evil individual, dangerous for the whole society through his perverse theorizations, even if it meant to lie, if necessary. Policemen charged with the investigation were also convinced, and like each time a case is put in the light by the media, they did their utmost to get to their ends.
Two among the pearls found in the case’s file: a child of the village was so well " interrogated" that he stated to have seen up to 100 nudists to bathe in the swimming pool of the Center. In fact: 2 Germans, arrived in the heat of a sumer day, believed they were still in Germanic ground, much more tolerant in this respect, and actually bathed naked; they were immediately stopped by the monitors, but the methods of interrogation succeeded in multiplying the score by 50; the policeman in duty believed that as hard as iron, if I judge by their attitude at the court four years later. The other pearl: a eight year old child to who the experts succeeded in making him say he had seen 27 knights in the courtyard of the castle, all on their horses, on green dresses with a black cross on the chest, guarding the enclosure of the sect…
Why " guru of pedophilia" ? Because the simple fact to allot a metapsychic purpose to non procreative sexuality inevitably raises the question of infantile sexuality. What can be the function of the early impulse of the small child, impulses that do not compare in anyway with the genital drive of adults: certainly not to exert the instinctive program related to reproduction. From there the idea that these early impulses would have as a function not to structure the Oedipus, like psychoanalysis claims, but the metapsychism, in particular extrasensory perception (ESP). It explains why these faculties are extremely rare in a society based on the driven back Oedipus. Knowing that the early impulses are directed (according to Freud) towards the adult, to allot a natural function to them equals, for those who do not distinguish between genital sexuality and infantile sexuality, to an apology of pedophilia… The short cut was too tempting, media and Justice did not miss to engulf there, expert psychiatrists first.
On the few 70 victims listed by J.K and Anne-Marie Casteret (more than in the Outreau case!), only two accusing girls, weakened by a failed love story, remained: one has apparently been sensitive to the prospect of substantial allowances as she accepted indeed an advance of 150.000 French Francs from the official Commission of Compensation a few months before the lawsuit, enough to irreversibly install her in her forged witness. Another , on the contrary, retracted a year after having yielded to police’s pressures and told how she had been forced to speak of a rape which never existed; her retractation was without any effect, the statement of her first declarations accompanied the case’s file up to the end. The same for a whimsical charge of J.K who had complained for reiterated death threats in order to stimulate investigators too passive according to his taste: this charge, that he withdrew formally after a year, still appears today at the head of the case’s file and polarizes at the very start every expert psychiatrist, judge or journalist.
What I learn from this epopee, is that today one runs the same risk by questioning the actual dogmas, for example the taboo of the Oedipus, than by questioning the dogmas of the Church during the Inquisition era. That the absence of condemnable acts does not guarantee at all against a miscarriage of the Justice, considering it is enough that a paranoiac and a journalist inspire some false witnesses on the basis of retributive vocation to succeed in the heretic’s elimination. That the supposed means of defense being guaranteed by a democratic justice such presumption of innocence, the inquiry at charge and discharge, the secrecy of the instruction and freedom expression are completely illusory in this types of cases. That power is ultimately held by the media, because some well launched scoops are enough to carry the adhesion of the investigators, experts and judges. That we live without realizing, as regards to sexual morals, in a totalitarian world where it is as dangerous to develop a dissenting thought than in USSR under Stalin or in the USA of the time of McCarthy.
My wrong was certainly to have formulated publicly and have continued to defend at any cost a theory too far away from the common sense, in the illusion that logic and intellectual honesty would finally win…
-
I know GCB fairly well, since he was a well known, highly respected, brilliant physicist and musician in Lausanne, our common home town.
Burger never got any PhD in Physics, neither did he ever make any contribution to this science in the form of even the most obscure and unnoticed published research paper or conference. Two minimal requirements to label someone as a plain physicist.
To label him as a "brilliant physicist" is therefore once more utterly ridiculous and as usual pure prevarication.
Burger just studied some Physics. Period.
-
Ok, dear Alpha, my mistake since I should have written “he was a well known, highly respected musician and the brilliant young assistant of theoretical physics professor Stückelberg which he replaced during a year in Lausanne, our common home town”. AFAIK, he stopped a promising career after being struck by a deadly cancer and than he spend all his time to research and develop his findings in nutrition, plus latter in what he called “metapsychoanalysis”.
Anyway, this thread was not intended to launch treacherous personal attacks, but to DEBUNK the instincto theory.
-
Anyway, this thread was not intended to launch treacherous personal attacks, but to question the instincto theory.
Iguana alias "Burger told me"
I suggest you apply for a job of moderator in this thread too. You're so funny when you "moderate" ;D
First step: change the title and replace the insulting "Instincto Debunking Thread" with the more polite "Instincto Questioning Thread"
-
Iguana alias "Burger told me"
I suggest you apply for a job of moderator in this thread too. You're so funny when you "moderate" ;D
First step: change the title and replace the insulting "Instincto Debunking Thread" with the more polite "Instincto Questioning Thread"
Just as a 3rd party point of view, the title of this thread is indeed insulting and meant to insult. It should be made more polite.
Many people in this forum have issues against Aajonus Vonderplanitz of Primal Diet fame, but we do not go out of our way making Primal Diet Debunking Threads just because raw dairy and raw veggie juice does not work for myself or others. But raw dairy and raw veggie juice does work for other people.
Aajonus had other outlandish claims unacceptable for other people like the coyotes giving him a live rabbit and that story with the indian wise man...
-
Iguana alias "Burger told me"
I suggest you apply for a job of moderator in this thread too. You're so funny when you "moderate" ;D
First step: change the title and replace the insulting "Instincto Debunking Thread" with the more polite "Instincto Questioning Thread"
For your info, I never applied for a job of moderator. I was kindly asked twice to accept that job for the instincto section and I finally and reluctantly accepted.
Thanks for the subtle distinction between “debunking” and “questioning”: I didn’t pay any serious attention to the exact meaning of both words. Since English isn’t my mother tongue, I wasn’t spontaneously aware there’s a so significant difference. Therefore, I just edited my above post to please you..
-
Just as a 3rd party point of view, the title of this thread is indeed insulting and meant to insult. It should be made more polite.
Many people in this forum have issues against Aajonus Vonderplanitz of Primal Diet fame, but we do not go out of our way making Primal Diet Debunking Threads just because raw dairy and raw veggie juice does not work for myself or others. But raw dairy and raw veggie juice does work for other people.
Aajonus had other outlandish claims unacceptable for other people like the coyotes giving him a live rabbit and that story with the indian wise man...
I fully agree and I add that the title of this thread is rather moderate compared to the ceaseless stream of intolerable insults and slander posted by Alphagruis.
-
Just as a 3rd party point of view, the title of this thread is indeed insulting and meant to insult. It should be made more polite.
Many people in this forum have issues against Aajonus Vonderplanitz of Primal Diet fame, but we do not go out of our way making Primal Diet Debunking Threads just because raw dairy and raw veggie juice does not work for myself or others. But raw dairy and raw veggie juice does work for other people.
GS I don't know of any bona fide instincto, i mean someone applying the 'instinctive" food selection method described by Burger in a Raw Paleo diet and being also in good shape. Those who are healthy just practice plain Raw Paleo. Instincto doesn't work, never.
Would you or other forumers here consider that a "Vegan Debunking Thread" would be insulting?
Would you accept to heavily promote Veganism here?
Whether you believe me or not, Instincto is as flawed as Veganism.
-
Iguana, thank you for translating! :-*
Who diagnosed J.K. as a "paranoiac"?
-
Who diagnosed J.K. as a "paranoiac"?
The psychiatrists who treated him during his stays in psychiatric hospital.
-
For your info, I never applied for a job of moderator. I was kindly asked twice to accept that job for the instincto section and I finally and reluctantly accepted.
For those others interested, I was the one who offered the job, without any "application" being involved. It was clear that we needed an actual Instincto follower for the Instincto forum, for obvious reasons, and Iguana fitted the various mod-requirements perfectly with his 22 years on this sort of diet , previous past posts etc.etc.
As for the AV-mentions, I agree. Personal attacks aren't helpful. I have long deeply loathed the mention of AV, due to past disagreements re his advice on raw dairy etc., but I found that it actually backfired on me when I went on the warpath too much. Eventually, I had to admit that AV was, at least, right on some issues, though I still hate his guts for a number of past reasons.
*Back in 2 weeks*.
-
For those others interested, I was the one who offered the job, without any "application" being involved. It was clear that we needed an actual Instincto follower for the Instincto forum, for obvious reasons, and Iguana fitted the various mod-requirements perfectly with his 22 years on this sort of diet , previous past posts etc.etc.
As for the AV-mentions, I agree. Personal attacks aren't helpful. I have long deeply loathed the mention of AV, due to past disagreements re his advice on raw dairy etc., but I found that it actually backfired on me when I went on the warpath too much. Eventually, I had to admit that AV was, at least, right on some issues, though I still hate his guts for a number of past reasons.
*Back in 2 weeks*.
TD,
-First I didn't care at all and I'm not even interested in whether Iguana was offered or applied for his job as a moderator in Instincto section. Obviously he was not offered to moderate in the Hot Topics section. So I suggested him to apply for a job of moderator including this section too. Period.
-Second for your info Iguana in spite of his or Burger's claims is not more Instincto than I am. In the 2005-2009 time bracket we met many times and I know perfectly well how and what he eats. His nutritional balance as mine has nothing to do with instincts and until Iguana met Burger last fall and fell under his influence he considered that my criticisms of Burger were at least "interesting and constructive".
-Third I was the first here to point out several months before Burger (most likely urged to do so by Iguana) ever posted here that he is right on his Raw Paleo stance and was so more than 40 years ago before many others. My criticisms only have to do with his ridiculous babble about instincts.
-Fourth in spite of their babble I'm not on a warpath with him or Iguana or other so-called instinctos. What for? Instincto is already dead. And I don't want the disappearence of the last two of them. ;D
My posts up to now on this subject (and for various reasons there won't be many more of them, maybe only one more later on) are mainly the result of a failed attempt to seriously debate on a scientific level in a French forum with this man. His dishonesty and prevarication were immediately so obvious that I stopped any further serious discussion with him. Let me be very clear, he belongs to that kind of humans I therefore despise most on this planet and so my "instinctive" tendency ;D) is to be rude with him. And I take this readily on myself and please notice that insults or sarcasms are on both sides. But in constrast to Iguana's ridiculous bleatings, I don't complain at all. I don't care to be insulted by such people.
-
-First I didn't care at all and I'm not even interested in whether Iguana was offered or applied for his job as a moderator in Instincto section. Obviously he was not offered to moderate in the Hot Topics section. So I suggested him to apply for a job of moderator including this section too. Period.
No, but I am moderating this section.
Everyone is thrown unnecessary comments back and forth in this thread. There's also been very little to no movement in any constructive direction the past couple pages. I am going to close the topic now. If one of the global mods feels it should still be open they'll open it but for now everyone's just beating a dead horse.
Addendum:
I received a PM not long after the locking of the thread wherein Iguana requested the following to be posted. As he was typing this when I locked the thread I will acquiesce with his request.
Alphagruis,
-Second for your info Iguana in spite of his or Burger's claims is not more Instincto than I am. In the 2005-2009 time bracket we met many times and I know perfectly well how and what he eats. His nutritional balance as mine has nothing to do with instincts and until Iguana met Burger last fall and fell under his influence he considered that my criticisms of Burger were at least "interesting and constructive".
I’m awestruck to learn that my nutritional balance has nothing to do with my instincts!
For your info again, I met GC Burger in 1987 and we kept in touch ever since. I still consider that your earlier mild “criticisms” of the instincto theory were interesting and at least done in a constructive spirit. When they became passionately destructive and shifted into personal attacks, I could no longer agree with you, which infuriated you even more…
Instincto-nutrition can be applied in different ways with a continuous gradation between taking a extreme care to the odor of the foodstuff or in letting the regulation be automatically done by the stuff’s flavor. The critical point remains the absence of food processing, mixing and seasoning since this avoids the misleading of our alimentary instinct. To deny this obviousness and to equal instincto diet with raw paleo diet in which the food is often processed and mixed is absolutely incoherent and deceitful.
-Third I was the first here to point out several months before Burger (most likely urged to do so by Iguana) ever posted here that he is right on his Raw Paleo stance and was so more than 40 years ago before many others. My criticisms only have to do with his ridiculous babble about instincts.
I did not urge GCB to post here, I just gave him the links to Alphagruis posts.
-Fourth in spite of their babble I'm not on a warpath with him or Iguana or other so-called instinctos. What for? Instincto is already dead. And I don't want the disappearence of the last two of them.
That’s a blatant nonsense, there are still many humans practicing instinctive nutrition, as well as billions of wild animals in their natural habitat…
My posts up to now on this subject (and for various reasons there won't be many more of them, maybe only one more later on) are mainly the result of a failed attempt to seriously debate on a scientific level in a French forum with this man.
GCB neglected to answer to a personal letter of Alphagruis who was apparently offended, but GC Burger did not refuse to answer him on the various Internet forums wherever he was attacked, as here where he just opened a Instinco debunker debunking new thread to specifically answer to each of his opponent arguments.
And I take this readily on myself and please notice that insults or sarcasms are on both sides. But in constrast to Iguana's ridiculous bleatings, I don't complain at all. I don't care to be insulted by such people.
Has anyone seen any insult in Burger’s posts or in mine?
-
This is my final comment on instincto. The subject desserves no further comment as far as I'm concerned.
Instincto is one of the best examples, I know of, of what physics Nobel price winner Robert Laughlin calls an antitheory or ideological thinking..
A key symptom of ideological thinking is that it is stated and re-stated at will in such a way that it cannot be tested. By no means. It’s a logical dead end called antitheory because it has exactly the opposite effect of real theories namely to stop thinking rather than stimulate it.
Instincto stance functions as a typical antitheory called upon to « explain away » the occurrence of the complex emerging phenomenon of health or alimentary balance in nature as well as any related embarrassing experimental shortcoming or observation and legitimize at best highly questionable statements and at worse not even wrong ones. Wild animals perfectly balance their diet ? Instinct does it ! My diet doesn’t cure me or makes me ill ? Wicked or denaturated instinct is at work ! Our organism’s nutritional needs are complex and hardly known ? Instinct manages it ! Our organism needs a specific herb to cure it ? Instinct makes him to find it etc etc
-If ones tries to put on test of logical consistency any of Burger’s specific « theoretical » considerations such as the existence of « an original biotope our genetics had supposedly adapted to » or the nature of his so-called « alimentary instinct » and then argues that it doesn’t work actually one is told that either this concept is in fact not necessary and instincto is a fact-based method that doesn’t need any theory or/and the « theory » is readily re-stated at will in contradiction with its previous form and usually in a form of the « not even wrong » kind, i.e ; wishful thinking and unsupported statements that cannot be put to test in any way.. Of course even the first alternative is utterly vain and useless because it is false to believe that there is any experiment, instincto included, that does not need theory to formulate it. This is thus itself nothing but a cleverly disguised antitheory intended to evade the requirement of logical consistency.
-If one tries to put to independent experimental test the method itself and happens to report results at odds with the guru’s claims, one is systematically told that it’s bad experiment or practice and an endless string of pretexts are invoked to dismiss these observations. In other words only the guru himself can actually « test experimentally » his method and do good experiments ;D
This situation is of course deadly for instincto’s status as a sound scientific matter. For it means that instinctobabble cannot be independently tested in any way and is therefore definitely sheer bullshit from a scientific point of view.
-
This belongs to the anti-instincto thread.
-
Was this accidentally locked? Sorry about that. It must have been the merging process.
-
This is my final comment on instincto. The subject desserves no further comment as far as I'm concerned.
Being given that Alphagruis states to have nothing to say anymore about the instincto diet, this thread has indeed no more reason to remain open. The readers who would like to know my answers at these attacks will find them on the new thread " Instincto Debunker debunking". (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instincto-debunker-debunking/)
-
I know, Burger, you don't like this thread.
But whether you like it or not I'm not the only "instincto debunker" so I can't see why this thread should be locked. ;D
-
Alphagruis, didn't you notice that this thread was locked by its moderator djr_81? ;D
-
But whether you like it or not I'm not the only "instincto debunker" so I can't see why this thread should be locked. ;D
Because both sides have degenerated to personal insults. You're beating a dead horse and that's all.
While there is dissent as to the validity of Instincto I feel we can all agree that our Instincto members do eat a raw paleo diet and their experiences in this realm, regardless of what drives did or did not urge them to eat what they did, are a valuable tool to this community as a whole. Let's be civil folks.
For the record I could care less about this topic and have no opinions on it nor will I "choose a side".