Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: Hanna on August 18, 2010, 06:59:21 pm
-
You may eat more of the same meat if it’s ground, so you’ll easily eat too much of it. As a result you may have digestion troubles and if you systematically grind your meat you can remain permanently in a state of meat overload which can be dangerous in the long run.
Have you ever experimented with grinded meat, Iguana? I can´t eat much meat, even if it is grinded, so I cannot experiment with it. But when I pureed, for example, nuts, I could actually eat LESS of them as usually, the alliesthetic stops manifested earlier or at least clearer (maybe because the surface of the pureed food is larger?) and my digestion was more perfect, at least with some kinds of nuts. When I add salt to meat, avocado, vegetable etc., I can suddenly eat more of the respective food, because alliesthetic stops disappear, and this can have negative effects (in my case). But after extensive experimenting with pureeing food (because I wore fixed braces for one and a half years...) I think that there is no reason to "forbid" mechanical treatment of food on principle, as long as one doesn´t mix different foods together and doesn´t add condiments.
-
Have you ever experimented with grinded meat, Iguana?
I bet the answer is no. What for since the guru told him? ;D
-
Well I can't seem to eat more than a pound of meat a day ground or not, unless it's rare-cooked, so I suppose I should be okay as far as too much meat consumption? The only problem was that ground meat was the only 100% grass-fed beef I could find, but I recently found a new store that has more grass-fed meats so I hope to get some nice, solid cuts of grass-fed beef.
-
Maybe someone wants to replicate my experiment, ideally someone familiar with instincto since several years. Just puree your food before you eat it (but make sure that you puree chicoree, lettuce, rucola, kohlrabi, cauliflower, papaya with its skin, walnuts etc. some day, because these foods are particularly tasty after pureeing -d). And then tell whether the alliesthetic stops manifest earlier or later. I mostly used a 600 watt hand blender.
-
Well I can't seem to eat more than a pound of meat a day ground or not, unless it's rare-cooked, so I suppose I should be okay as far as too much meat consumption? The only problem was that ground meat was the only 100% grass-fed beef I could find, but I recently found a new store that has more grass-fed meats so I hope to get some nice, solid cuts of grass-fed beef.
I eat a pound at one sitting. :)
-
I eat a pound at one sitting. :)
But you only have one sitting(as do I).
-
I hear you Michael. So the grinding is not a problem? Just the way it is done with a grinder cleaned with industrial cleaners? Does time do a job on the meat differently when it is ground?
Seemingly, others may disagree raw-al but, personally, I think it's ok to eat it ground if done very soon after grinding at home. The only issues that concern me are the industrial cleaners and not consuming it fresh. Indeed, time almost certainly seems to do a job on the massively increased surface area! I haven't experienced the issue of non-manifestation of the alliesthetic stop by eating ground meat and have not noticed any ill effects on my digestion. Other's experiences may vary.
I'm currently eating around 500g (1.1lb) raw meat per day in the form of fatty lamb or beef.
As a further note, I'm also beginning to realise the importance of not obsessively focusing on attaining an unachievable level of perfection with one's diet. We have to live within the constraints of modern society and within the constraining responsibilities of our own lives. I think Lex has made some very good points on this matter in his journal.
-
Have you ever experimented with grinded meat, Iguana? I can´t eat much meat, even if it is grinded, so I cannot experiment with it. But when I pureed, for example, nuts, I could actually eat LESS of them as usually, the alliesthetic stops manifested earlier or at least clearer (maybe because the surface of the pureed food is larger?) and my digestion was more perfect, at least with some kinds of nuts. When I add salt to meat, avocado, vegetable etc., I can suddenly eat more of the respective food, because alliesthetic stops disappear, and this can have negative effects (in my case). But after extensive experimenting with pureeing food (because I wore fixed braces for one and a half years...) I think that there is no reason to "forbid" mechanical treatment of food on principle, as long as one doesn´t mix different foods together and doesn´t add condiments.
I bet the answer is no. What for since the guru told him? ;D
I’m actually doing the opposite experiment: to eat unprocessed meat and everything else unprocessed, unseasoned. My former 41 years experiment with ground, processed meat and other cooked foodstuff was disastrous enough… Yeah, I didn’t separate the variable and try each processed foodstuff and each process independently : it would be a painstakingly long work.
But I’ve recently experienced raw ground supermarket beef on my cat. He’s very found of it and he engulfs it very quickly in large amounts. On the opposite, he doesn’t like raw, plain supermarket beef at all: he reluctantly eats some when extremely hungry only.
I also witnessed the experiment of our friend “Carnivore” with his damned meat grinder doing the hell of a noise. He apparently ate so much meat and meat only during so long that in the end he grew tired, bored and lazy of chewing it. So, by grinding it, he could still easily eat exclusively meat for some more months.
Even if there was no grinders and blenders in the Paleolithoc era, I don’t think grinding food is too bad; in the case of someone missing teeth it can be the best solution to still eat raw. But if our natural grinder (our mouth with teeth) is in working order, why recourse to an external grinder? Of course, it’s not “forbidden” (everybody being free to eat and process whatever he or she likes). Everything has advantages and shortcoming, and so it is for grinding. The main shortcomings of grinding seem to me that we mix different parts of the stuff, some of these parts we might not have eaten when unprocessed so that we could eat the parts we like and reject the parts tasting bad. Per example, once meat is ground, we can no longer choose the ratio of fat to muscle because everything is mixed. If you grind carrots or make carrot juice, you cannot spit out and reject the possible bad one since it’ll be mixed with all the others.
In doubt, it may be wise to eliminate every plainly Neolithic food and processes: its’ just an elementary application of the precautionary principle. I didn’t write that there’s a non-manifestation of the alliesthetic stop with ground food, Michael, I inserted “may” and “can” in my sentences.
As for “gurus”, Alphagruis ;D, I had plenty of them and they taught me a lot of things, to start with my father and mother, school teachers, professors, philosophers, engineers, biologists and physicists. I owe them just about everything I know. Nevertheless, I put everything into questions and I avoid beliefs like the plague, as recommended by Descartes for example. But when an argument is logical and coherent, I don’t feel an irresistible need to put my life and health in danger by setting up experiments to prove or disprove it, especially when I don’t give a damn about it. :P
Cheers
Francois
-
I found that eating raw, ground meat made me eat a lot more than I usually did. Also at the start of going rawpalaeo it took a bit longer to digest than raw non-ground meats.
-
I'm currently eating around 500g (1.1lb) raw meat per day in the form of fatty lamb or beef.
As a further note, I'm also beginning to realize the importance of not obsessively focusing on attaining an unachievable level of perfection with one's diet. We have to live within the constraints of modern society and within the constraining responsibilities of our own lives. I think Lex has made some very good points on this matter in his journal.
Thoughtful as usual. I got a digital scale and decided to try weighing my meat consumption. A typical day sees me eating approximately 4.5 ounces of meat once a day. I cannot eat more or I gag. I follow AV other diet recommendations. I will look in grinding my own though.
Also I periodically eat some garbage or another ;D :o and then I say to my GF " why didn't you warn me I would feel sick from eating that stuff? If you loved me you wouldn't let me". She laughs while I wince in pain.
-
But you only have one sitting(as do I).
ha ha :D I did think that myself miles but daren't say it?!! -\ I only tend to eat once a day myself too.
-
OH, indeed, once per day except on lifting days when I eat about 8oz. ground beef before hand. Those are so small and I still fast so I still count it as one as it is within an eating window.
-
I don’t feel an irresistible need to put my life and health in danger
It would not be necessary to "put your life and health in danger". You could, for example, eat grinded meat and plain meat alternately. If the plain meat isn´t tasty any longer, but you still like the grinded meat, you could stop eating the grinded meat.
-
But I’ve recently experienced raw ground supermarket beef on my cat. He’s very found of it and he engulfs it very quickly in large amounts. On the opposite, he doesn’t like raw, plain supermarket beef at all: he reluctantly eats some when extremely hungry only.
Does your cat like grass fed beef or game more than supermarket beef?
-
I eat a pound at one sitting. :)
Is that ground or solid?
I can almost eat an entire pound of ground beef in one sitting. There's usually just a few bites or so left that I can't seem to eat, and I will usually leave that out to get nice and browned with age overnight and then eat it the next day, so I don't mind. It's a nice treat.
The solid grass-fed meats I found however are extremely expensive, so I think I might end up sticking with ground beef.. I can buy 4 times as much grass-fed ground beef as I can grass-fed solid beef, for the same price. In the interest of saving money, I will probably stick mostly to ground, with maybe every once in a while treating myself to a solid grass-fed steak if I can afford it. :'(
-
Thoughtful as usual.
Thanks! :)
Also I periodically eat some garbage or another ;D :o and then I say to my GF " why didn't you warn me I would feel sick from eating that stuff? If you loved me you wouldn't let me". She laughs while I wince in pain.
ha ha :) That's funny. I do exactly the same thing!
-
Thanks! :)
ha ha :) That's funny. I do exactly the same thing!
We rent a video and hunker down in bed with the 24" iMac on the dresser to watch it and I haul out a bag of some kind of "health food" ;D like vege chips or corn chips or whatever. :P l) :o :( ;D
-
It would not be necessary to "put your life and health in danger". You could, for example, eat grinded meat and plain meat alternately. If the plain meat isn´t tasty any longer, but you still like the grinded meat, you could stop eating the grinded meat.
Yes, I could but :
- I have no grinder and I don’t want any : expensive, very noisy, bothersome to wash, energy consuming.
- Rather than chop the meat into small pieces with a knife, I very much prefer to bite into a large piece : it tastes better so and the mouthfuls are torn away, which leaves a gradual edge and distend the flesh, making chewing a lot easier.
- I can choose to eat the fat or the muscle in the proportion I like.
- As I said, I don’t give a damn about it, so why would I bother to experiment it? There are more interesting things to do in life than to revert separately to each kind of Neolithic or industrial food processing to check whether it generates troubles or not!
- Short term results of such experiments can be misleading.
- The experiments I witnessed, by “Carnivore” and on my cat, were convincing enough in case the reasons above wouldn’t be sufficient, which is not the case.
Does your cat like grass fed beef or game more than supermarket beef?
He never had grass fed beef, but sometimes NZ lamb and he likes it very much, fat and muscle. He’s crazy about wild boar and deer, but I prefer to eat it myself... Concerning supermarket beef, it depends. Previously he didn’t like much or not at all the fatty pieces I found, but today I bought some very nice lean pieces looking like filet steaks, sold cheap for animal consumption (I guess the limit date for sale was over) and he ate a lot of it, apparently with delight. He had only sardines, organic eggs, and probably a few mice and insects for several days, so he was apparently missing meat. The quality of supermarket beef sold for animals can vary largely, from mainly grass fed to industrially fed, from lean to very fatty, so it’s difficult to conclude anything.
-
- As I said, I don’t give a damn about it, so why would I bother to experiment it? There are more interesting things to do in life than to revert separately to each kind of Neolithic or industrial food processing to check whether it generates troubles or not!
- Short term results of such experiments can be misleading.
- The experiments I witnessed, by “Carnivore” and on my cat, were convincing enough in case the reasons above wouldn’t be sufficient, which is not the case.
If you give a damn about it, why do you teach in this forum that mechanical food processing is (or "could be") detrimental? Couldn´t it be that you are not willing to put your belief systems to test?
Carnivore told that he tried instincto and that instincto didn´t help him either. Apropos carnivore, he isn´t signed in to the forum any longer, so he can´t defend himself.
Almost any variety of fruit we eat is entirely neolithic. I bet that all the dates, oranges etc. rawfooders often eat are much more detrimental than, say, thinly sliced (i . e. "mechanically denatured") meat, diced vegetable or even sauerkraut. Food processing is nothing specifically neolithic; in paleo times cooking was already widespread.
-
If you give a damn about it, why do you teach in this forum that mechanical food processing is (or "could be") detrimental? Couldn´t it be that you are not willing to put your belief systems to test?
Hi Hanna,
I don’t teach anything, I just give my opinion (based as much as possible on the facts I know and logical inferences) and tell what I do and saw in view of helping others. I may be wrong; please don't believe me and feel free to do and test whatever you like.
Carnivore told that he tried instincto and that instincto didn´t help him either. Apropos carnivore, he isn´t signed in to the forum any longer, so he can´t defend himself.
Did I attack Carnivore here ? Do you consider this as a personal attack ?
I also witnessed the experiment of our friend “Carnivore” with his damned meat grinder doing the hell of a noise. He apparently ate so much meat and meat only during so long that in the end he grew tired, bored and lazy of chewing it. So, by grinding it, he could still easily eat exclusively meat for some more months.
Himself told me he’s lazy to chew. And anyway at the time I wrote that I hadn’t noticed he’s no longer a member here. He’s probably well done and perhaps I should do the same, so I won’t have to answer to hostile and unfriendly attack s anymore. Yes, he tried his own kind of instincto without meat and without daily intake of animal food >D, as has already been largely discussed and commented here. (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/)
Almost any variety of fruit we eat is entirely neolithic. I bet that all the dates, oranges etc. rawfooders often eat are much more detrimental than, say, thinly sliced (i . e. "mechanically denatured") meat, diced vegetable or even sauerkraut. Food processing is nothing specifically neolithic; in paleo times cooking was already widespread.
You’re right, it seems cooking appeared during middle Paleolithic or a little before and it was probably widespread in the upper Paleolithic already. Yes, most of the fruits varieties we have now have been drastically selected and therefore we should be careful with them, and yes again “mechanical denaturation”is doubtlessly not a great nuisance. Sauerkraut neither if it’s made without vinegar – is it usually the case? I don’t know, but I remember that I didn’t like it as it had a vinegar taste or something alike.
Cheers
Francois
-
I do wish people wouldn't blindly refer to fruit as being "neolithic". The simple fact is that if one uses this wholly arbitrary designation, then one would have to admit, if one was remotely honest, that raw grassfed meats from farms are wholly "neolithic" too as the raw meat comes from animals which have been heavily inbred for millenia to produce vastly oversized udders etc. so that modern animals bear little resemblance to their wild palaeolithic counterparts and are much lower in quality.
-
Exactly, I was about to write it but I didn't for the shake of succinctness. Thanks, to have highlighted that.
Francois
-
Sorry, Francois, I didn´t want to annoy you.
Re sauerkraut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerkraut
I tried it several years ago; it is salted and there was no clear alliesthetic stop. But I did not notice any serious negative effect from eating raw sauerkraut, whereas eating too much dates or other fruit high in sugar usually has negative effects in my case.
-
No problem ! ;)
-
I do wish people wouldn't blindly refer to fruit as being "neolithic". The simple fact is that if one uses this wholly arbitrary designation, then one would have to admit, if one was remotely honest, that raw grassfed meats from farms are wholly "neolithic" too as the raw meat comes from animals which have been heavily inbred for millenia to produce vastly oversized udders etc. so that modern animals bear little resemblance to their wild palaeolithic counterparts and are much lower in quality.
I do wish that people wouldn't blindly refer to the Raw Paleo paradigm as a dogma. This would prevent us from being fooled and trapped into ridiculous contradictions like the one your refer to above. Everything (we included) has more or less evolved since paleo times whether one likes it or not and Raw Paleo paradigm should be viewed only as an interesting general idea and guideline, nothing more.
It is wrong to believe that everything is a priori good if paleo and bad if neolithic. We have to evolve and find out what works and what doesn't work generations after generations. As all mutations are not systematically detrimental in biology and evolution but may sometimes provide new capabilities and make a new living and contribute to evolution, all neolithic inventions re food should not necessarily be rejected and sometimes one of them may be even advantageous rather than systematically be detrimental, fermented food being an example. We have to find out and cannot stop evolution anyway.
Keeping this always in mind would also urge us to more systematically experiment and avoid to state or teach occasional nonsense or simply unproven babble and talk about things we don't really know anything about as the funny example of Iguana's exchanges with Hanna, because of his dogmatic sticking to instincto stance, nicely demonstrates above in this thread.
-
Could you please highlight in what exactly I would have been dogmatically sticking to the instincto stance, and what would be dogmatic in the instincto stance itself ?
I also fail to see in what TD reference to the Raw Paleo paradigm is dogmatic. I’ve understood that he has just drawn a parallel between the artificial selection of cultivated fruits and that of domesticated animals. It doesn’t exclude the possibility that a Neolithic invention re food might be advantageous. Why do you take fermented food as an example? It’s not a Neolithic invention since fermentation often occurs naturally.
By the way, I agree with your statement that “Raw Paleo (and instincto) paradigm should be viewed only as an interesting general idea and guideline, nothing more.”
-
No Iguana, we don't agree at all, instincto paradigm is precisely just wrong in what it claims to be more than and in what distinguish it from plain Raw Paleo ;D
-
The general truth is that the further we've gone from Nature, the worse off we have been. Domestication of dogs is a classic example, most species thereof being unable to realistically adapt to the wild like wolves can, having huge numbers of defects due to artificial inbreeding done by humans etc. It's been theorised that if humans let well enough alone, Nature would ensure that within a certain number of generations, all dogs(that survived natural selection) would end up closely resembling wolves re DNA etc. So, raw wild game is invariably superior to anything that grassfed farmers can produce, simply because natural selection(and lack of enclosures) means both higher quality meats due to superior DNA(as a result of natural selection) and better access to higher quality raw foods.
Also as Iguana pointed out , fermented food is Palaeolithic not neolithic, really, as many wild animals feast on things like fermented fruit.
-
I challenge you or anybody else to clearly and unambiguously define what it means "to go away from Nature". So things are by far not that simple.
Also sauerkraut is a clear cut neolithic dish, no wild animal or paleoman ever included in their diet. BTW according to instincto dogma it necessarily fools our "instinct" and has to be dismissed. This is even so true that the inspired instincto guru tried (with little success in this forum a few weaks ago) to make fun of those like me who eat occasionally such stuff ;D
-
Interestingly my neighbour who grew up in a remote part of Tibet says that in his youth the family would kill 2 yaks a year. After they killed an animal, the first day they would cook their meal and after that they ate it raw. He says that it was the best when it turned blue. At this point he would close his eyes and make a lip-smacking sound remembering how good the blue stuff was.
-
I challenge you or anybody else to clearly and unambiguously define what it means "to go away from Nature". So things are by far not that simple.
Also sauerkraut is a clear cut neolithic dish, no wild animal or paleoman ever included in their diet. BTW according to instincto dogma it necessarily fools our "instinct" and has to be dismissed. This is even so true that the inspired instincto guru tried (with little success in this forum a few weaks ago) to make fun of those like me who eat occasionally such stuff ;D
Well, I've personally tried sauerkraut a number of times since going rawpalaeo. It was a waste of time with no benefit to me - all that happened was that I got vast stools as a result.
As far as going away from nature is concerned, obviously most of us rawpalaeos do not live in ideal circumstances as many do not have access to raw wild game and the like, but the vast majority of us have found that it's healthier for us to avoid unnatural behaviours such as cooking or non-palaeo foods like raw dairy etc.
-
I challenge you or anybody else to clearly and unambiguously define what it means "to go away from Nature". So things are by far not that simple.
It seems the common accepting of the word “natural” is the opposite to “man-made”. But as you say, things aren’t that simple because, as ever, a clear threshold cannot be put between natural things and artificial things, for example because there are natural fires, so grilling may be considered natural. That’s why Burger choose the word “original” instead of “natural” and probably why Vonderplanitz took the word “primal”.
Anyway, most people agree that a planet, a mountain, a stone, a pine, an ant, a shark, a bird are natural things while an airplane, a chair or a truck are artificial things. When we wear shoes and clothes, live in a house, process food, we are obviously going away from nature.
Also sauerkraut is a clear cut neolithic dish, no wild animal or paleoman ever included in their diet. BTW according to instincto dogma it necessarily fools our "instinct" and has to be dismissed. This is even so true that the inspired instincto guru tried (with little success in this forum a few weaks ago) to make fun of those like me who eat occasionally such stuff ;D
Dogma according to Reverso (http://dictionnaire.reverso.net/anglais-cobuild/dogma)
If you refer to a belief or a system of beliefs as a dogma, you disapprove of it because people are expected to accept that it is true, without questioning it.
It’s very funny that you refer to a supposed “instincto dogma” because the instincto theoretical model is definitely anti-dogmatic. At the beginning of a one-week seminar, Burger took the entire morning to tell us not to believe in his theory, but to constantly and relentlessly put every aspect of it into question. He stressed that a theoretical model is never the ultimate truth, but an approximation that will be one day modified or superseded by another one which better explains the known facts, that any theory is only a temporary mean to explain the reality, which remains fundamentally unknown. That his theory is essentially a questioning of the conventional theories, usually accepted without any awareness of referring to a theory (per example the physician prescribing antibiotics refers to Pasteur’s model, most often unconscientiously).
The instincto theory doesn’t state that any food processing will necessarily fool our alimentary instinct: it states that it might more or less fool that instinct.
Will you answer to my questions I quote below and take the opportunity to provide a more suitable example than fermented food?
Could you please highlight in what exactly I would have been dogmatically sticking to the instincto stance, and what would be dogmatic in the instincto stance itself ?
Why do you take fermented food as an example? It’s not a Neolithic invention since fermentation often occurs naturally.
About that:
No Iguana, we don't agree at all, instincto paradigm is precisely just wrong in what it claims to be more than and in what distinguish it from plain Raw Paleo ;D
In what is “plain Raw Paleo” fundamentally different from “instincto”? How do you answer the question in title of this thread : “Can You Still Eat Raw Meat if it's Turned a Little Brown?” in "plain Raw Paleo" style without use of our alimentary instinct ? How did paleo hominids knew whether they can eat such a meat turned a little bit brown?
;)
Cheers
Francois
-
brown meat is often very tasty,
if it is greenish or taste bad them don't eat it.
The decay that turns meat brown is is often beneficial bacteria pre digesting the meat for our benefit
-
sabertooth,
Just curious... I always thought that as long as the meat was in contact with the air that it was OK. Meaning that there is oxygen available say in the top part of a jar or that the bottle was aired recently. Is that your understanding?
-
My sentiments as well, although there is issues with contamination with forgin substances that could act as a catalyst for the growth of undesirable molds and bacteria.
I was making aged meat in my old coconut butter Jars, and I didn't completely wipe the butter out of the lids(figure no biggy)Wrong
Some of the beef got a greenish, yellow tent; instead of the light brown that indicates more beneficial cultures.
-
Interesting because my neighbour from Tibet says that they used to keep butter for a very ling time say 10 years in a sheep's stomach (like the old Roman method possibly). Apparently it was delicious and a delicacy when it was aged. It changed colour as time went on.
-
Iguana, Sauerkraut is not instincto since salt seems to be indispensable for its production.
-
Did I claim the contrary, Hanna? Moreover, I don’t think that any stuff (nor people) should be called “instincto”. Properly speaking, there are stuff not eaten in instinctonutrition: grain, dairy, processed and mixed food (sauerkraut for example) and there are some people practicing instinctonutrition.
;)
-
Iguana, Sauerkraut is not instincto since salt seems to be indispensable for its production.
I used to make vegie kraut with at least half the ingredients by weight and volume being cabbages of one sort or another. I never used salt. They say they use salt to kill the bad bacteria. The bacteria I cultured were good anyway. They say you have to use dairy whey to start the bacteria. I never used that. Did you? I had never heard of the word instincto though, instinct yes .. and wasn't eating brown meat or any meat. I've tried sauerkraut while eating RVAF. I dislike it now.
-
I used to make vegie kraut with at least half the ingredients by weight and volume being cabbages of one sort or another. I never used salt. They say they use salt to kill the bad bacteria. The bacteria I cultured were good anyway. They say you have to use dairy whey to start the bacteria. I never used that. Did you? I had never heard of the word instincto though, instinct yes .. and wasn't eating brown meat or any meat. I've tried sauerkraut while eating RVAF. I dislike it now.
I just made a pot of sauerkraut, two days ago. Fermentation is always perfect if high quality cabbage is employed. Period.
No need of dairy whey or anything else nor much salt. I used 0.5% for taste but less or none would probably do as you observed RawZI. Salt at this level does not kill bacteria but just probably favors some strains at the expense of others and so might channel the fermentation process.
What is needed however is neolithic pottery, juices must cover the stuff, fermentation is anaerobic
Taste as smell is strongly influenced by intellect. Vegans "dislike" meat and ZC's "dislike" fruits or veggies etc etc depending on one's presently favorite ideology one dislikes or likes things or foods.
-
RawZi, I never made sauerkraut myself, so probably you and Alpha are right.
-
Taste as smell is strongly influenced by intellect. Vegans "dislike" meat and ZC's "dislike" fruits or veggies etc etc depending on one's presently favorite ideology one dislikes or likes things or foods.
Babies and animals don’t have any ideology and we’d better get rid of any as well. But for a number of adults, a blindfolded training would not be such a bad idea, at last? ;)
Any answers to my questions here? (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/can-you-still-eat-raw-meat-if-it%27s-turned-a-little-brown/msg44390/#msg44390)
Francois
-
It’s very funny that you refer to a supposed “instincto dogma” because the instincto theoretical model is definitely anti-dogmatic. At the beginning of a one-week seminar, Burger took the entire morning to tell us not to believe in his theory, but to constantly and relentlessly put every aspect of it into question. He stressed that a theoretical model is never the ultimate truth, but an approximation that will be one day modified or superseded by another one which better explains the known facts, that any theory is only a temporary mean to explain the reality, which remains fundamentally unknown. That his theory is essentially a questioning of the conventional theories, usually accepted without any awareness of referring to a theory (per example the physician prescribing antibiotics refers to Pasteur’s model, most often unconsciously).
this all fine and good, but at the end of the day, as soon as you start quoting one thing as undeniably better than another thing (even things generally accepted as obvious like natural vs processed) this is in-it-of-itself the definition of dogma no matter how seemingly accurate. In a state of entropy, the counterintuitive tends to have increasing value, and the counter-conventional, is not always accurate. There are better dogmas and worse dogma, and as you cite: more ignorant unconscious awareness of other theories' influence AND examples of less ignorance when it comes to consciously being under someone else's umbrella as to what is 'right'. I think alphagruis is pointing out these aspects of Instinco, as obviously there are far 'worse' dogmas one could be trapped in. But the very thought that following natural (particularly in unnatural setting, degeneration, poor states of health etc..) principles such as in fasting and other observed natural phenomena can prove to be quite harmful and at the very least, not ideal for contemporary humans in a variety of situations. Therefore people holding on to these ideas, despite proof of the following, very well seem to be under the umbrella of dogma, way more so than people who have the audacity to pick and choose from man-made 'theories' (others dogmas if you will) of which there is an admitted huge abundance and confliction. The significance is that the 'pillars' of Hygiene, Instincto, etc...can and will obstruct people from trying out other paths to health. If anything buts up against these theories they are either considered false or dangerous without any serious experimentation, therefore the dogma label applies quite well I believe.
what is “plain Raw Paleo” fundamentally different from “instincto”? How do you answer the question in title of this thread : “Can You Still Eat Raw Meat if it's Turned a Little Brown?” in "plain Raw Paleo" style without use of our alimentary instinct ? How did paleo hominids knew whether they can eat such a meat turned a little bit brown?
;)
Particularly for people not following Instincto, what aid does smelling an egg to tell if they 'need eggs' or smelling brown meat have of value, considering it takes time to develop such 'instinct'. Seems to me a perfect example of a situation where one would just assume (based on knowledge) that meat was traditionally eaten a little off at times. Of course that wouldn't make it ideal from a nutrition standpoint, or safe for all people on all diets, specifically based on that information alone.
-
I don’t like your insults, Alphagruis. If you are unable to post here without letting loose your personal grudge with GCB and me, it makes any objective discussion impossible and you’d better shut up. I remind you that when you registered here, you signed “I agree” to the rules of this forum, the first phrase beginning with “You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane (…).”
But I’ll answer anyway.
- It’s true that blindfolding was ineffective in my case because the girl at my table presented to my nose a banana, an orange, fennel and such stuff I was already accustomed to eat. So, I easily recognized those foods by their smell. But blindfolding is certainly useful to disentangle a psychological or cultural deadlock to foods someone is unaccustomed to or disgusted by their aspect, per example in my case at the time, shellfish, crab, squid, liver and other organs.
- Your second phrase is just utterly stupid abusive sarcasm.
- I wonder how many here perfectly caught your points and anyway, even if everybody else entirely understood you, I still ask you to politely answer to my questions. Otherwise I’ll consider that you’re unable to provide logical answers to the very simple points I raised.
-
this all fine and good, but at the end of the day, as soon as you start quoting one thing as undeniably better than another thing (even things generally accepted as obvious like natural vs processed) this is in-it-of-itself the definition of dogma no matter how seemingly accurate.
Did I quote something as undeniably better than something else? On what criterion? Dogma according to Reverso (again) : If you refer to a belief or a system of beliefs as a dogma, you disapprove of it because people are expected to accept that it is true, without questioning it.
Do I expect people to accept something as true without questioning it ? On the contrary, I dearly encourage questioning. I’ve no religion, I avoid beliefs and I draw your attention to the fact that the word “dogma” is usually associated with religious or ideologists beliefs.
In a state of entropy, the counterintuitive tends to have increasing value, and the counter-conventional, is not always accurate. There are better dogmas and worse dogma, and as you cite: more ignorant unconscious awareness of other theories' influence AND examples of less ignorance when it comes to consciously being under someone else's umbrella as to what is 'right'.
I’m living and thinking independently and ever since 16 years old I’m no longer at all under anybody umbrella as to what’s right, thanks.
I think alphagruis is pointing out these aspects of Instinco, as obviously there are far 'worse' dogmas one could be trapped in. But the very thought that following natural (particularly in unnatural setting, degeneration, poor states of health etc..) principles such as in fasting and other observed natural phenomena can prove to be quite harmful and at the very least, not ideal for contemporary humans in a variety of situations.
I didn’t fast more than 24 h for the last 23 years. What do you mean by “observed natural phenomena”?
Therefore people holding on to these ideas, despite proof of the following, very well seem to be under the umbrella of dogma, way more so than people who have the audacity to pick and choose from man-made 'theories' (others dogmas if you will) of which there is an admitted huge abundance and confliction.
Which ideas do you refer to? I never hold to any idea: my ideas are temporary and ever changing approximations, not an intrinsic and permanent part of me. I feel free to change them without previous notice when proved wrong. Of course, I pick and choose and think by myself amongst the “huge abundance and confliction”… and sometimes I even got ideas of my own. 8)
The significance is that the 'pillars' of Hygiene, Instincto, etc...can and will obstruct people from trying out other paths to health. If anything buts up against these theories they are either considered false or dangerous without any serious experimentation, therefore the dogma label applies quite well I believe.
Where did you get the amazing idea that “Hygiene, Instincto, etc...can and will obstruct people from trying out other paths to health”? ???
Particularly for people not following Instincto, what aid does smelling an egg to tell if they 'need eggs' or smelling brown meat have of value, considering it takes time to develop such 'instinct'. Seems to me a perfect example of a situation where one would just assume (based on knowledge) that meat was traditionally eaten a little off at times. Of course that wouldn't make it ideal from a nutrition standpoint, or safe for all people on all diets, specifically based on that information alone.
Our nose being just over our mouth, an rotten egg, smelling bad, will usually be recognized before ingestion. There’s no time “to develop such 'instinct'” : it works ever since birth, or almost. A meat that smells bad will usually not be ingested. For the rest, I beg your pardon because I couldn’t catch what you mean.
-
Iguana, when I first came to this forum, I had been 'guesting' for some time. You always came across to me as really fascinating and kind person. I don't know if its an issue of being pressed on the topics by alphagruis, myself, and others but I believe I've very rarely made personal attacks towards you, and yet I seem to always get the same sarcasm and harsh words you accuse others of. Because of this I've radically adjusted my impression.
If you've never head of someone (perhaps I'm thinking of someone other than yourself for once) quoting from Instinco, its practitioners, or the works of Sheldon or any other master of 'natural health' or nature itself as far as what is a healthy practice for a human and what is not, then truly you must be as original and self-motivated as you say in your understanding, perception, and experience of the world and others because that is way deep in Plato's cave for proper shadow-play.
The reason I chose fasting is that other than raw eating, it is one of the most universally accepted natural phenomena partaken by animals if they are indeed sick. It is my opinion that despite that occurrence that humans today have different requirements than that in nature due to a variety of unnatural factors, and no mater how in tuned with that nature, they will not always be drawn to the best solutions for health without the knowledge gained from others and potentially solutions that DO NOT exist in nature. I am 95% sure of this :)
either way, I don't see why you tend to take things so personally, and cite the same 'experience' over an over when they often don't even include experience of the thing in question, only mere survival and existence without it which says extremely little. It sounds more like cover and rationalizing than freedom to go in any direction. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. It sounds like both Instincos and Hygiensts have alot to lose in admitting any food or therapy outside its system has any value, as it slowly makes that system crumble.
I've known many decades long fruitarians who have nothing they can sell me based on their current 'longevity'. Also of note, if I've been f^%@#ing for 15 years, does that make me the best fu^@er? Does that make me fu&*^ing Cassanova who has the answers for everyone? Or is it basically impossible for me to teach or learn from everyone, or even have a sense other than an opinion on what is best and what I know.
in my observation, whether one is pro or against fasting is irrelevant and I believe you understood what I meant enough that I'm really disappointied in your response. The fact is is that no citing of whether 'which animal or primitive in nature will do X' (as I believe the form of your sentences often takes) has 0 importance in my lfie and certainly does not supersede the results of my colleagues if they are proven viable.
Would you rather I used the issues brought up within this same thread, or salt, or sauerkraut, or meat processing, raw dairy, or liver flushing, colonics, chelation or any other 'unatural' ideas that came to you in some sort of epiphany independent of the words of others. I'd be interested at some point, to hear which original ideas you have in regards to health that differ from GCB in any recognizable way. Surely if you have come to the same conclusions, either you share a dogma, or you have both tapped into a truth of the world, which is itself a dogma as there are no universal truths or systems or surefire ways of finding those systems. I found it totally upsetting that now as a moderator you chimed into a discussion about 'transitioning to raw' with a solution something like "100% raw, no grains no dairy is best". forgive me if this is not an exact quote, but i'm sure if it is not that will be a reason to dismiss my entire writing.
-
Iguana, when I first came to this forum, I had been 'guesting' for some time. You always came across to me as really fascinating and kind person. I don't know if its an issue of being pressed on the topics by alphagruis, myself, and others but I believe I've very rarely made personal attacks towards you, and yet I seem to always get the same sarcasm and harsh words you accuse others of. Because of this I've radically adjusted my impression.
(...)
I’m sorry if you had the impression that I was harsh and sarcastic in my answers to you. It was not my intention, but it’s true that last night I was displeased by Alphagruis insults and I was under the impression, wrongly as I understand now from your last post, that you were backing him.
Unfortunately I didn’t find the “instincto” theory myself, I discovered through the book of GCB and I owe that to him. I didn’t believe him, so I decided to test it for one week to see if what he wrote is true or not. As Seignalet wrote, I don’t know whether everything he asserts is true, but until now, I didn’t find any flaw in his theories. Perhaps we only diverge somewhat in our way of practicing.
I readily accept that some therapy outside “instincto” can be effective and I have nothing against fasting. Instinctive fasting is practiced by animals and can of course also be practiced within an “instincto” framework. I’ve nothing against chelation neither, nor against medicine in case it is necessary.
I may relate the results of my experience with the instincto practice whenever I take the time to do so, but it is only anecdotal and it won’t constitute a proof of anything since there’s no identical copy of myself only differentiated by having followed a standard diet – and I was not affected by a so called incurable disease when I started.
About health I’m still looking for an idea that could be different of GCB’s, but I haven’t found any coherent one yet and if have a few different ideas than his, it is on other subjects than health. If I’ve come to the same conclusions than Galileo, Copernic, Einstein and others, I don’t think it’s fair to say, as you do, that we “share a dogma”, nor that we “tapped into a truth of the world”, any truth being always relative and temporary.
Thanks for your understanding.
-
Please don´t quarrel.
An advantageous food intervention could be, for example, coconut cream. It is more easily digestible and probably more completely digestible than hard coconut meat. One can puree the coconut meat adding water or the coconut water. An alternative would be to buy coconut Kopyor, available at Orkos. Its meat is soft and often mixed with the coconut water. Unfortunately, coconut Kopyor is very expensive and often contains little meat. Therefore, it is not really an option.
-
About health I’m still looking for an idea that could be different of GCB’s, but I haven’t found any coherent one yet and if have a few different ideas than his, it is on other subjects than health. If I’ve come to the same conclusions than Galileo, Copernic, Einstein and others, I don’t think it’s fair to say, as you do, that we “share a dogma”, nor that we “tapped into a truth of the world”, any truth being always relative and temporary.
Thanks for your understanding.
fair enough, I have a hard time reining in any cutting remarks myself obviously.I was indeed siding with alphagruis at least on the dogma issue, and probably side similarity on many of the particular dietetic criticisms of course as well.
certainly Einstein is the perfect example of a dogmatist for our purposes. Despite his at the time from left-field brilliance, and actual religious goals for a cosmic spirituality above dogma, when defending his ideas to later developments, his only requirement to shun them were the same equally religious and dubious statements such as the famous 'god does not play dice' thing. It wasn't necessary to prove that god doesn't play dice, Einstein said so.
I think you are confusing dogma with being valueless. Its only the 'these things are true because they are true' axiom, which becomes rather problematic. That and having an entire system that builds from singular elements that are themselves fairly ideological and speculative no matter how apparent and visible they seem. Certainly Einstein as with Newton before him contributed greatly to a type of understanding in the world. Many objects and concepts of this world were created based on these ideas and indeed function but that doesn't mean the original idea accurately describes reality and might eventually become less useful in our descriptions and understanding.
At a fictional convention of all of these famous scientists throughout history, how many of these individuals would have an easy time giving up their worldview and lifes work for a completely antithetical one, especially if they can illustrate it so well with their own surroundings and experiment? Therefore, your perspective is not surprising, but I remain fairly skeptical about the flexibility of such a system that has such strict off the bat dismissals. Even if there are things I also temporarily agree with primarily like in regards to cooking or mixing. There's certainly value in history and traditions and science to be explored, not filtered through pre-existing constructs ultimately created by people.
-
Mechanical food processing and fermented foods are discussed from an instincto point of view in the thread "Can You Still Eat Raw Meat if it's Turned a Little Brown?" beginning with Reply #19:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/can-you-still-eat-raw-meat-if-it's-turned-a-little-brown/msg43658/#msg43658
Maybe anybody else would like to contribute to this topic.
-
OK, this topic has been split from Can You Still Eat Raw Meat if it's Turned a Little Brown? (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/can-you-still-eat-raw-meat-if-it%27s-turned-a-little-brown/)