Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: kurite on February 06, 2011, 06:47:48 pm
-
Probably a question for Iguana but Im basically wondering if we evolved to instinctually eat what ever is optimal at that time but we have little control of food selection in the wild then how could we have developed a mechanism for specifically choosing a food? For example if I was craving an apple but all I could find was an orange.
-
I doesn’t work this way. The alimentary instinct can only tell whether something physically present is edible and in which amount, whether it is very good or just acceptable (if you’re hungry) instead of something better. In case there are two or several stuff found edible in the surroundings, it can tell which one is the best and therefore the most suitable at the moment.
-
So then what is instinctos stance on craving whether food is present or not?
-
I have recently jumped on the instinct bandwagon and have been attempting to make it fit into my own progressive theory's of evolution.
The development of instincts is a way for the process of evolution to program into the code of life, the modes of survival particular to a static environment. Its a dance between nature and nurture, whereabout an eternal process of building and maintaining optimal living under static conditions; will be countered with changing environment which forces the DNA to compromise its structures and evolve to survive.
When the environment changes to such a degree where the instincts are no longer able to cope, then evolution jumps into action. Animals when faced with starvation, or malnourishment will actually activate a survival mode that is embedded into the DNA, which will begin to trigger epigenetic changes that mark a desperate attempt to reprogram the code of life to adapt to the change in environment. (Life will find a way)
If the animal is successful, then new instincts will form a new way of life that can be maintained in the new environment,:until the force of nature once again changes things up. Its an eternal dance, that is as beautiful as it can be horrid. It often takes most of a species dieing of through mass starvation or predation, before the Mechanics of survival will kick in and produce the necessary adaptions need to perpetuate life in a changing environment.
Without choice instinctive living cannot be maintained and evolution must step in to cull off the weak and force the strong onto a different mode of living. That being said, us humans have the advantage of being able to maintain a certain diet no mater what the weather is doing; and thus are able to buck the system, but this by no means makes us free of the process of evolution, nor does it give us the ability to go against instinct without consequence.
I have been doing some thinking about my own craven impulses since becoming 100 percent raw and what I have experienced is unbelievable by most standards. I will have a freezer full of meat and fat( and yet last night for example) I had the strongest craving for fresh fish, so I had to drive to a store kind of out of the way to get what I wanted. I have found that I will get these cravings all the time, sometimes its for bone marrow, other times its for liver or eggs. I will go through great links to satisfy my cravings.(to the point of bankruptcy) When I couldn't get the tuna I wanted I settled for some other type of fish. I will often be without something I crave and just make due with the next best thing.
Before this diet I had no Idea what to do as far as choosing between the lesser of evil foods: I was eatting all type of wicked stuff, like rice, beans, potatoes, dairy. There is no way for me to tell which is worse between such poor foods once the body is so overloaded with junk.
Can ones instincts protect you if all the foods that are in the environment are less than optimal to begin with?
There has to be optimal foods available in order to make the most of your instincts, otherwise you have to suffer with either the pains of pre evolution, or the emptiness of extinction.
-
So then what is instinctos stance on craving whether food is present or not?
Cravings are based on memory. If the last time we ate a foodstuff it was very tasty, then we may crave for it again. But things change, our needs shift and we never find exactly the same natural stuff again, every single animal and plant being somehow unique, in a particular state of growth, maturation, ripeness, and so on.
Also we can’t have any memory of (and therefore craving for) a stuff we never ate before. Eating raw, we always discover new foods, I even still do after 24 years! If we’ve never eaten raw wild boar liver before, there’s no way we could crave for it. Moreover, we may have been disgusted by a foodstuff we found badly tasting in the past and still be psychologically blocked to it while our body condition and needs have drastically changed in the meantime so that this stuff would now be very tasty and useful to us.
Thus, we better not rely on cravings, even if they can be helpful sometimes. For example (as Alphagruis once mentioned) it can be useful to know in advance whether we should walk 10 km to the bay were there are oyster, mussels, clams and crabs or 10 km inland to find nuts or fruits. But once on the spot, our smell and taste senses will tell us which is the most suited seafood or fruit in case there’s a choice. If only one potentially edible stuff is found, our said senses will tell us if it’s actually edible for us at the moment and in which amount.
As all mammals, we have our nose just over our mouth and it’s probably no coincidence: it must be there to find out what ‘s good to eat and check what comes in. Our sense of smell is rather atrophied, but we can help it by scratching the skin of plant food before putting it right under our nose, by peeling off an avocado or by shaking a basket of nuts to feel their smell.
Cravings can be spot on but can also sometimes be totally misleading. So, we’d better check them by smelling every potential foodstuff available before biting into some stuff. In last resort, if we crave for something but are unable to feel any smell from it, its taste will tell.
Hope this helps
François
-
Cravings are based on memory. If the last time we ate a foodstuff it was very tasty, then we may crave for it again. But things change, our needs shift and we never find exactly the same natural stuff again, every single animal and plant being somehow unique, in a particular state of growth, maturation, ripeness, and so on.
I find this craving vs instinct thing interesting, an example in point from my recent inclusion of RAF's in my diet, which doesn't seem to agree with Francois' first point above, but does agree with his second point:
I had never eaten raw beef before the beginning of this year. Cooked, very occasionally before age 13 when I became vegetarian, then again in a 3-year spell in my mid-20's when I ate meat again and very occasionally would have a rare steak (maybe that would have given me an idea of what raw would taste like?). Anyway, the point I am making is that towards the end of last year, feeling something was amiss with my LFRV high fruit diet, I saw a picture of kids eating raw beef bones, in my search for 'change'. And I instantly had what I would call a 'craving' for raw beef. I was possessed by it for almost two weeks, none of my usual diet satisfied me. Than I finally succumbed, and it literally was like heaven, that first bite.
So, it certainly was not a true 'memory' of raw beef that gave me that 'craving', as I had never eaten it before, so was that a DNA-encoded memory? Or instinct? Since there was no smell or taste stimuli to give me that urge, only SIGHT - does sight count towards following instincts?
And interesting that since that first week when I ate raw beef three times, beef just hasn't tasted quite as good, or given me quite the same feeling of 'divine' satisfaction (illustrating his second point). Unless it has been sitting for longer than a week in the fridge. But doing well with experimenting with other meats and fish now, and enjoying them, but havehad no more 'craving' experiences driving me towards a particular type of RAF.
-
So, it certainly was not a true 'memory' of raw beef that gave me that 'craving', as I had never eaten it before, so was that a DNA-encoded memory? Or instinct? Since there was no smell or taste stimuli to give me that urge, only SIGHT - does sight count towards following instincts?
Perhaps the fact that you had sometimes before eaten meat (cooked rare, but no matter) would leave you with a memory of it, and the picture remained you about it? Sight of a foodstuff or even the thought of it can sometimes trigger salivation (but only as long as we know it for having eaten it before, I think), so in such a case the craving can be spot on. But the final judge is the smell and taste sense.
And interesting that since that first week when I ate raw beef three times, beef just hasn't tasted quite as good, or given me quite the same feeling of 'divine' satisfaction (illustrating his second point). Unless it has been sitting for longer than a week in the fridge. But doing well with experimenting with other meats and fish now, and enjoying them, but havehad no more 'craving' experiences driving me towards a particular type of RAF.
Yeah, that’s absolutely typical. The first time we eat a particular stuff raw, it can taste absolutely delightful. And very often we become subsequently unable to find it so supremely delicious. That’s consistent with the theory because if a vital need has been fulfilled the first time, that need had become no so crucial and therefore the stuff happen to be a bit less delectable.
Cheers
François
-
Perhaps the fact that you had sometimes before eaten meat (cooked rare, but no matter) would leave you with a memory of it, and the picture remained you about it? Sight of a foodstuff or even the thought of it can sometimes trigger salivation (but only as long as we know it for having eaten it before, I think), so in such a case the craving can be spot on. But the final judge is the smell and taste sense. Yeah, that’s absolutely typical. The first time we eat a particular stuff raw, it can taste absolutely delightful. And very often we become subsequently unable to find it so supremely delicious. That’s consistent with the theory because if a vital need has been fulfilled the first time, that need had become no so crucial and therefore the stuff happen to be a bit less delectable.
Yes, what you say makes sense. I do sometimes wonder though whether we have an inherited memory of such things like taste and smell....maybe from one or two generations back, or even millenia back, without having ever tasted or smelled a thing before. I'm sure we have some sort of innate ability to tap into what we know is good for us, but that we have totally lost contact with it, or lost the ability to use it.
Just thoughts and musings on my part - I don't expect answers, as I'm sure no-one really knows! Just interesting options to consider. If it is true that on some level we have access to ALL there is to know, then this possibility must be true, and it would be amazing to be able to tap into that knowledge and use it to our benefit.....
-
Yes, what you say makes sense. I do sometimes wonder though whether we have an inherited memory of such things like taste and smell....maybe from one or two generations back, or even millenia back, without having ever tasted or smelled a thing before. I'm sure we have some sort of innate ability to tap into what we know is good for us, but that we have totally lost contact with it, or lost the ability to use it.
Just thoughts and musings on my part - I don't expect answers, as I'm sure no-one really knows! Just interesting options to consider. If it is true that on some level we have access to ALL there is to know, then this possibility must be true, and it would be amazing to be able to tap into that knowledge and use it to our benefit.....
I'm learning about this in psych class. A famous psychiatrists named Carl Jung believed that we had inherited memories that was actually store in the unconscious. He called it the collective unconscious.
-
I'm learning about this in psych class. A famous psychiatrists named Carl Jung believed that we had inherited memories that was actually store in the unconscious. He called it the collective unconscious.
Yeah, know about that, and that's pretty much what I'm referring to. Imagine being able to really tap into that........then wouldn't have the angst of trawling through results of scientificstudies or reading people' research or personal experiments to find out what we really need ito diet and all other aspects of wellbeing.
Well, guess that's part of what we are here to try to achieve, is to tap into 'source'. Have to keep reminding myself that food and diet is not going to get me there...it may help ito of being physically and mentally healthy, but the real groundwork is through meditation and deep self-study. That's what utimately gives me real perspective on things when the info out there just gets too overwhelming and contradictory!!
-
Yeah, know about that, and that's pretty much what I'm referring to. Imagine being able to really tap into that........then wouldn't have the angst of trawling through results of scientificstudies or reading people' research or personal experiments to find out what we really need ito diet and all other aspects of wellbeing.
I think that every single individuum hast the ability to find out what he really needs even children and newborns. Unfortunately we were overloaded with things we don't need from the the very first breath and suffer deficiency from things we really need. It's not easy to come out if this trap but it is possible. Eating instinctiv raw is for me the most successful way I ever tryed. Neither medidation nor self-study helped me more.
If the body is well nourished and the metabolism in balance, spirit and soul become peaceful. You come back into a state of permanent wellbeing, a sort of paradise totally independent from outside influences. You are taped into source.
[/quote]
-
I think that every single individuum hast the ability to find out what he really needs even children and newborns. Unfortunately we were overloaded with things we don't need from the the very first breath and suffer deficiency from things we really need. It's not easy to come out if this trap but it is possible. Eating instinctiv raw is for me the most successful way I ever tryed. Neither medidation nor self-study helped me more.
If the body is well nourished and the metabolism in balance, spirit and soul become peaceful. You come back into a state of permanent wellbeing, a sort of paradise totally independent from outside influences. You are taped into source.
Thanks for sharing that Susan - what you say makes complete sense. I have only been eating raw meat since the beginning of the year (raw vegan a long time before that), but I have found it interesting to note that I do feel as if I have tapped into something deeper since then. I thought that reducing fruit has helped me feel calmer (it probably has), and thus allowed me to go deeper, but also finally listening to what my body tells me, rather than mind and other people, is a sign of acknowledging the guidance of something deeper.
-
Sorry about my lengthy absence, I was quite busy
This discussion took an interesting turn, but we’ve got to be beware of slippage. The existence of a collective unconscious where all truths would be hiding does not exclude that we have our feet in the material world (and even our stomach and sensory aids). My experience has shown that the normal man's consciousness should share equitably between these two fields of reality: physical and spiritual. Wanting to reduce everything to matter, as in our rationalist culture, is a denial of the essentials. But wanting to reintegrate everything into the transcendent archetypes or essences is also forgetting the basics, this time the physical universe. I think true consciousness comes on both those essential aspects.
Regarding the alimentary instinct, the hypothesis of a biological evolution (physical and a priori not spiritual) seems enough to explain it.
The first cells were already experiencing a selective pressure in their chemotaxis: those absorbing useless or harmful substances were automatically put into a state of inferiority in regard to those attracted by the most beneficial substances. The latter ones have necessarily been able to multiply more. Chemotaxis could therefore evolve over the first billion years to a more and more elaborate ability to select. Our olfactory and taste cells are clearly specialized in chemotaxis, inherited from these cells. In the last billion years, our genes could inherit of improvements – always provided by the laws of natural selection – which made the alimentary instinct a very elaborate functional structure, mediated by extremely complex brain centers and capable of responding to all kinds of environmental situations. Kurite's idea suggesting that our ancestors have had a very limited choice, and so our instinct wouldn't be adapted to a diversified food range, is invalidated by the storage capacity of our genetics and the diversity of situations the different species that preceded us have been through.
In addition, we must check what happens in environments where primates live in a manner probably quite close to that of our most recent ancestor (last tens millions years): for example orangutans in Borneo (or whatever remains of them). They have access to a range of products much larger than our culinary palette, which boils down to a few grains, tubers and milk products. As shown first by Jane Goodall, the number of natural products eaten by chimpanzees is over two hundred. The idea of an environment where there would be oranges only is quite contrary to the reality of what we can observe in nature. But the fact that the instinct evolved in a diversified environment does absolutely not exclude that it can work if there are only two foodstuff available: it will choose the most appropriate.
GCB
-
Sorry about my lengthy absence, I was quite busy
Welcome back again.
This discussion took an interesting turn, but we’ve got to be beware of slippage. The existence of a collective unconscious where all truths would be hiding does not exclude that we have our feet in the material world (and even our stomach and sensory aids). My experience has shown that the normal man's consciousness should share equitably between these two fields of reality: physical and spiritual. Wanting to reduce everything to matter, as in our rationalist culture, is a denial of the essentials. But wanting to reintegrate everything into the transcendent archetypes or essences is also forgetting the basics, this time the physical universe. I think true consciousness comes on both those essential aspects.
Totally agreement from my side.
-
This discussion took an interesting turn, but we’ve got to be beware of slippage. The existence of a collective unconscious where all truths would be hiding does not exclude that we have our feet in the material world (and even our stomach and sensory aids). My experience has shown that the normal man's consciousness should share equitably between these two fields of reality: physical and spiritual. Wanting to reduce everything to matter, as in our rationalist culture, is a denial of the essentials. But wanting to reintegrate everything into the transcendent archetypes or essences is also forgetting the basics, this time the physical universe. I think true consciousness comes on both those essential aspects.
Yes, absolutely - that state of 'Being in the world, but not of the world'....
-
I have just recently unlocked the power of instinct through the last year on a raw diet.
There is definitely a change occurring in me that is beyond description. Not only have I regained my health , but I have developed my senses, to such a degree that I am now governed by this new inner voice that shows me how to eat. I even feel some deeper calling telling me what I should be doing with my time. Its all so wonderful and hard to describe without sounding incredible. I now have such a dislike of almost everything outside of a small range of foods, and even those foods I eat I screen thoroughly for quality. Whereas before I would ingest about anything without rhyme or reason. It feels like I have been possessed by a highly critical spirit which protects me from my past foolish eating habits.
I have found a diet of primarily Animal flesh and coconut, which seems to fit my needs, I have been eating this particular and limited range of foods for the last year and have found I am well sustained feel strong and healthy. My senses are developing to a new peak. It seems that I have limited my own food choices according to what feels right for me. Even with a limited menu I still find the urge to forage for new items. I now have a good Idea of how our craven ancestors would have felt when they had some craving for something that isn't at hand.
Humans in their evolutionary state could trek great distances and overcome great obstacles to obtain what is needed to thrive, and only in the most famished of circumstances would they be limited to only a couple of food choices. That being said I do believe that within our genetics there are markers of those times of famine and starvation, and I theorize that under the right circumstances one could mimic those conditions and force ones genes to revert back to a survival mode where the body could be programed to thrive off of limited food selection. I have read about how the same genes that protected our ancestors from starving in times of famine by lowering metabolism and lowering the requirements for nutrients could be responsible for the ravaging effects of gluttony and metabolic issues that are caused by an astronomical abundance of poor quality foods among modern man.
I am experimenting with myself right now by eating the ketogenic diet, My body is denied carbohydrates so it transformed its metabolism to burn fat, and thus bypassing my damaged ability to digest carbs. I see the history of our evolution within such adaptions, there was a time when my ancestors could have lived on a diet that was void of carbohydrates(perhaps during the ice ages) There are genetic appendages that were formed at those times and passed down onto myself where they remained dormant through my early life under the spell of poor foods, only to have been reactivated by my bodies struggle to gain sustenance on a low carb diet. These evolutionary leftovers have been attached to us as gifts of added security from those who share our Lineage and are the birthright of a successfully species. There must be countless subliminal messages stored within our genetic code that would enable use to thrive under about any circumstances just so long as there were no hindering factors to suppress the emergence of an instinctive renaissance.
-
Sabertooth:
Thank you for this wonderful post!
Nicole
-
Sabertooth - thanks for sharing! Wonderful that you are experiencing that.
-
Kurite's idea suggesting that our ancestors have had a very limited choice, and so our instinct wouldn't be adapted to a diversified food range, is invalidated by the storage capacity of our genetics and the diversity of situations the different species that preceded us have been through.
I never meant to suggest this at all. I fully believe our body is equipped to millions and millions of different foods that are in our paleolithic range. For example my ancestors may have never eaten durian but I'm sure if I was to have found one now my body would know whether or not it instinctually wanted to eat it. The only thing our body is limited to in terms of food is food within our natural environment. Also not specifically and you GCB but when I brought up the collective unconscious I simply meant to bring up a theory, I don't fully believe in it I just thought it would interest some people to know about it.
Thanks for replying GCB
Welcome Back :)
-
Quote from Kurite:
I fully believe our body is equipped to millions and millions of different foods that are in our paleolithic range. For example my ancestors may have never eaten durian but I'm sure if I was to have found one now my body would know whether or not it instinctually wanted to eat it. The only thing our body is limited to in terms of food is food within our natural environment.
Personally, I rather tend to refer to the theories of evolution and to think that the organism is genetically programmed for natural products in contact of which our genome has been elaborated. Durian has existed since immemorial time, it is found in the forest of Borneo and Sumatra, where the last free orang-utan live. It is part of their habitat, and as the durian is much older than primates, there is every reason to think that the genome we inherited had the opportunity to adapt to this fruit.
The question is rather if and how the body can cope with new fruit, which would have never existed. Assuming that genetic manipulation creates a new kind of apple with the flesh of a cherimoya and the scent of a passion fruit ... How's the instinct to react? Will it be immediately able to recognize the nutritional adequacy of this new fruit according to the body needs? Or will it succeed only through a long learning? Or never during the whole life of the individual, despite all attempts to learn?
I fear that the alliesthesic mechanisms able to make us accept or reject various natural foods will be completely disrupted and it will take a few hundred instinctos generations till they can adjust via a long process of adaptation by natural selection. In contrast, concerning the level of fullness, it is likely that a few meals will be sufficient for the satiety reflex to set into place, knowing that all mechanisms of disgust are essentially learned. But only experience would decide...
Quote from Kurite:
Also not specifically and you GCB but when I brought up the collective unconscious I simply meant to bring up a theory, I don't fully believe in it I just thought it would interest some people to know about it.
In my case, I was led from the age of 13 to live some experiences (involuntary for first) which convinced me of the very real existence of a supernatural dimension that Jung called "collective unconscious" (a term most often misunderstood, as he points out himself). I personally prefer to speak of metapsychic dimension, referring to the aspect of reality which the human psyche has almost no longer access due to the state of disintegration to which it is presently restricted.
Why this access is so rare or so difficult, what are the factors that have apparently done that we lost it during our history, how to find it back: these are the questions that I attempt to answer through the "Metapsychonalysis”. This part of my research, leading to a questioning of the Western conception of sexuality, has met even more dramatic opposing reaction from the institutions (media, justice) than the part on nutrition.
Regards
GCB
-
I have always felt the presence of a eternal soul(great spirit), as far as I can remember I have felt that there is something eternal that is a part of me. I have recognized frequent faintly subconscious communications between myself and my kinfolk while growing up, that is far beyond rational explanation. How this ties into human evolution or the instincto view of things, I am just beginning to ponder. Perhaps there are parts of the human mind that developed these extra sensory abilities before the use of verbal communication began to dominate the evolving mind. Primitive tribal peoples have had to connect to the world in other ways and perhaps had found ways to connect to nature and each other in ways we can never relate to.
I am a curious soul who is open to other discussions regarding ways of reaching the metaphysical dimension while maintaining a lucid mindfulness. I think such aspirations could bring the insights of the unconscious soul onto the stage the conscious mind. If the soul is in harmony with the gentic will, then great experiences can be had. I seem to be finding my self squinting my minds eye only to see a shadow of that place. I often feel like I am close to a trail, and somewhere in that 90% of brain matter that scientist say we don't use, there must exist the Neural pathways to the Nexus. Those pathways may be cloaked with the debres of disuse. The path is also obstructed by countless dead ends and and faintly distinguishable trails that are to rugged and seemingly too impenetrable for conscious thoughts to reach . Perhaps those old roads have been completely steam rolled over by the demands of the new world .Yet in those buried corners of the mind, untapped by the awareness, I know there exist an underworld that contains pathways to another world of possibility and potentiality.
Perhaps it sounds a bit to mystical, but I have this notion that there is and will always be more to the mind of man than can ever be noticed. It only requires someone with the right touch to carfully excavate the fossilized essence of the universal intuition of the mind and blow away the dust and cobwebs of the ages that keep second sight from appearing before the conscious mind. (OK now this is getting meta mystical ) anyway there must be something wonderfull going on within the depths no matter what can be comprehended by our sensual perceptions of reality.
I can try to link these seemingly random thoughts to comments about how the dietary pathways have been forged by the trials of our ancestors. We have inherited the ability to utilize a huge variety of food stuffs with the guidance of instinct. By the same Principal our ancestors must have layed innumerable mental tracts that can be recovered by some yet undefined method and those rediscoveries can be integrated into a greater variety of consciousness. This greater consciousness would better insure the survival of the DNA strain ;such notions seem to be in tune with the instincto way of viewing things. The conscious mind can be made aware of the remnants of hidden instincts. Within the scope of the newly complet and total being, a cooperation between once opposing forces can be had. The recombining of the old protomind ruled by instinct to the new mind ruled by reason seems possible. This may be the next step for my own personal evolution, if I can ever get a grip on the heart of the matter I would like to apply what I have learned to my next stage of evolution. That is the training of the new generation in they ways of homing the instints. . Even people who have limited second sight can still encourage those who still have the inherently limitless potentialities by showing those with beginners mind that there are countless ways to tune the mind toward optimal states of being.
(other tangent thoughts keep bubbling up)
This may be a stretch , but I seem to feel that if one can tune into the survival centers of the brain and focus an urgent singal through the conscious and unconscious mind then that deliberate message can somehow reach and effect the expression of the DNA. Perhaps there may be the possibility that the Will of an organism can actually signal the DNA to make adaptions as it struggles with and interacts with the environment(real or perceived).
I have been thinking about how there must be more than assumed natural selection which is responsible for the progressive march of specialization and is ultimately the origin of a species within the process of evolution. The Will to live in relation to the struggle of the organism to adapt must somehow have a direct effect on the genetic expressions and must be the catalysts for evolutionary changes. The life force from within the code of DNA is what drives evolution.(in my observation) the environment just provides the obstacles and necessity's that prompt the DNA to alter itself according to its inherent instinctual tendency's. Sometimes The DNA chooses the wrong solution and the adaption fails and sometimes the adaption is correct, but its still not enough to save the organism from a cruel reality,other times the conditions are right and the adaption is correct and the mutation gets passed along to the next generation , this is what is called natural selection. There is no way that some totally random mutations that are responsible for such diversity and complexity of life forms. ( I have been having these arguments with the ghost of Darwin's lately, its fun to imagining oneself conversing with the great scientific minds on equal grounds( please forgive my insolence and haunt me no more )
-
The question is rather if and how the body can cope with new fruit, which would have never existed. Assuming that genetic manipulation creates a new kind of apple with the flesh of a cherimoya and the scent of a passion fruit ... How's the instinct to react? Will it be immediately able to recognize the nutritional adequacy of this new fruit according to the body needs? Or will it succeed only through a long learning? Or never during the whole life of the individual, despite all attempts to learn?
I fear that the alliesthesic mechanisms able to make us accept or reject various natural foods will be completely disrupted and it will take a few hundred instinctos generations till they can adjust via a long process of adaptation by natural selection.
I´m afraid that instincts don´t really work even with many currently existing fruits. When I eat fruit, the signals of my body (instinctive or learned) are often contradictory. For example, I often perceive a very slight burning in my mouth after I have eaten some dates. This burning is caused by the dates in my mouth. Furthermore, the dates often begin to taste a bit too sweet at that point. I know by experience that burning and taste change are stop signals and that I will be better off when I stop eating dates at that point. However, I tend to continue eating the dates because they still taste attractive and because it isn´t at all unpleasant to eat them. (The faint burning can easily be ignored.) In the final analysis, I stop or limit my date intake either by reason or by intuition, but not by instinct as defined by the alliesthetic mechanisms.
-
In my case, I was led from the age of 13 to live some experiences (involuntary for first) which convinced me of the very real existence of a supernatural dimension that Jung called "collective unconscious" (a term most often misunderstood, as he points out himself). I personally prefer to speak of metapsychic dimension, referring to the aspect of reality which the human psyche has almost no longer access due to the state of disintegration to which it is presently restricted.
I believe that most children have an access to the spiritual world (or to a supernatural dimension) but loose this access during growing up. As adults most people only have a breeze of intuition that there must be more than modern science is telling them. For me instinctive eating is a way to regain this higher consciousness.
Why this access is so rare or so difficult, what are the factors that have apparently done that we lost it during our history, how to find it back: these are the questions that I attempt to answer through the "Metapsychonalysis”. This part of my research, leading to a questioning of the Western conception of sexuality, has met even more dramatic opposing reaction from the institutions (media, justice) than the part on nutrition.
How to find the way back is humans mission on earth, isn't it?
From the point of higher consciousness there is no wrong and right, good and bad there is only pure love. If one has reached this point there will be no opposite anymore. If it happens to me that somebody or somewhat put an obstacle in my way to regain higher consciousness I know that this is my personal obstacle which I have to overcome: I notice it and accumulate power (for example with the help of raw food ) to overcome it.
Perhaps it sounds a bit to mystical, but I have this notion that there is and will always be more to the mind of man than can ever be noticed. It only requires someone with the right touch to carfully excavate the fossilized essence of the universal intuition of the mind and blow away the dust and cobwebs of the ages that keep second sight from appearing before the conscious mind.
This person will be you if you follow the way of your instincts and intuitions?
-
I'm afraid that instincts don't really work even with many currently existing fruits. When I eat fruit, the signals of my body (instinctive or learned) are often contradictory. For example, I often perceive a very slight burning in my mouth after I have eaten some dates. This burning is caused by the dates in my mouth. Furthermore, the dates often begin to taste a bit too sweet at that point. I know by experience that burning and taste change are stop signals and that I will be better off when I stop eating dates at that point. However, I tend to continue eating the dates because they still taste attractive and because it isn't at all unpleasant to eat them. (The faint burning can easily be ignored.) In the final analysis, I stop or limit my date intake either by reason or by intuition, but not by instinct as defined by the alliesthetic mechanisms.
When you perceive a slight burning your instinct is telling you a clear "stop". You ignore it by reason. Maybe because you think you need more than this handful dates, maybe the overloading with sweets generates a familiar, although harmful feeling.
How do you feel afterwards? Do you recognize an overloading?
-
When you perceive a slight burning your instinct is telling you a clear "stop". You ignore it by reason.
No, I tend to ignore it "instinctively" because eating the dates is often still very pleasant. I´m sure that most rawfooders don´t even perceive such faint stop signals unless they concentrate on their perceptions while eating.
Yes, of course, my experience shows that ignoring the burning has - sooner or later - negative effects on my health.
-
No, I tend to ignore it "instinctively" because eating the dates is often still very pleasant. I'm sure that most rawfooders don't even perceive such faint stop signals unless they concentrate on their perceptions while eating.
Many rawfooders ignore faint instinctive stops like you do with the argument it's still pleasant to continue. I believe this is due to the wrong molding of our instincts during childhood: In modern civilisation sweets serve as a compensation for physical contact. This wrong molding still exists even when your eating raw. It's a trap where many rawfooders remain caught. The only way to free oneself is to obey this faint stops.
-
Ah dates. The first time I tasted true dates a few months ago, I got hooked.
Then I bought 4 bag fulls.
I ate until I got sick of it.
I clearly don't want to buy any more dates in a long while.
-
100% agree with Susan, my case...
-
I believe this is due to the wrong molding of our instincts during childhood
No, it´s due to the fact that instincts (as defined by gcb) don´t really work with dates and most other fruits. A true instinctive stop would be a taste change from pleasant to unpleasant.
Some things are just as simple as they seem to be.
-
No, it's due to the fact that instincts (as defined by gcb) don't really work with dates and most other fruits. A true instinctive stop would be a taste change from pleasant to unpleasant.
Some things are just as simple as they seem to be.
Define the term "true instinctive stop".
Do you only have noticed one form of instinctive stop namely the change from pleasant to unpleasant?
There are lot of different forms of instinctive stops beginning with an itching in the oral cavity and ending with an irritation of the throat. More forms here: Die instinktive Sperre (http://www.rohkostwiki.de/wiki/Die_instinktive_Sperre)
Dates and other cultivated fruits and vegetables normally have only faint stops but they have like you have mentioned. Mother nature can be very tender and smooth. In the case of ignoring faint stops she can be hard and cruel:
Yes, of course, my experience shows that ignoring the burning has - sooner or later - negative effects on my health.
-
No, it´s due to the fact that instincts (as defined by gcb) don´t really work with dates and most other fruits. A true instinctive stop would be a taste change from pleasant to unpleasant.
Some things are just as simple as they seem to be.
Things are perhaps not so simple.
These large rations of dates (or other dried or sweet stuffs) can be explained by several factors:
1. Dates can be processed, for example heated to be dried because fresh dates have strong tendency to rot. Dried fruit denatured by heat are no longer recognized by the normal alliesthesic mechanisms, so taste stop signs are virtually non-existent. And even in case the dates haven’t been heated, if we ignore the gut signals (feeling of satisfaction, fullness, etc..), which often require rehabilitation, we consumes immoderate quantities.
2. There may be at a lack of awareness of our own perceptions of taste. In this case, as Susan said, we must learn to recognize the weak (faint) signals that are still visible.
3. But it is also quite possible that large quantities of dates or other sweet products are useful and even necessary in the beginning to unlock metabolic situations. A seemingly unreasonable amount may simply reflect a major need of the body, for example to reconstruct what a massive consumption of rice or other processed starches could have caused. When you need to renovate a house, you must also bring exceptional amounts of brick or cement, much more than in everyday life: it is not a sign of madness of the workers, but rather the symptom of intensive work. Even the discomfort following the digestion may be the signal for a big job of the immune system (eg feelings of disgust, allergic reactions, etc..) and it’s important not to conclude too quickly to a nuisance.
Given the confusion sown by the culinary practices in the functioning of the metabolism and immune system, all three phenomena can even be superimposed. To see clearly in each case there’s only the long-term observation. The body must move towards a better general health, welfare and endurance must recover, the disease symptoms disappear, etc.. It may take a long time, because we do not rebuilt a body in a jiffy.
For example, in the early years, I could sometimes consume kilos of honey or dates with nothing to stop me at a "normal" amount. But this did not happen all the time, proof that my body knew exactly to open or close its intake valves. But over time, these "therapeutic diets" became more and more rare. Now the first bites of the same products are often as delectable as before, but stopping occurs in inescapably after very small amounts (a few bites, of course not every day).
This suggests that these mechanisms are perfectly regulated and are in no way uncontrolled skidding. Beginners panic, because their considerations are based on dietary standards; but these are meaningless, since they are only average values thus inherently incapable of responding to individual cases. Needs vary greatly from an individual to the other and from a moment to another, especially after the havoc wrought by years of denatured nutrition.
So beware: do not conclude too quickly, the body has its reasons which reason knows nothing about...
Best regards
GCB
-
A seemingly unreasonable amount may simply reflect a major need of the body, for example to reconstruct what a massive consumption of rice or other processed starches could have caused.
This is a part of your theory I have never understood. Doesn´t the body consist mainly of water, protein and fat? So if there are any tissues the body would like to replace - why should it be necessary to eat massive amounts of carbs to do the job?
-
I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?
-
This is a part of your theory I have never understood. Doesn´t the body consist mainly of water, protein and fat? So if there are any tissues the body would like to replace - why should it be necessary to eat massive amounts of carbs to do the job?
Where did you get such ideas? Carbohydrates play an equally essential role than proteins and lipids in the constitution of our cells. The quantity is not everything.
Proteins assure a polarization of the membrane, but this role is primarily devoted to carbohydrates. They form varied and complex structures at the surface of the membrane. Carbohydrates are attached to the membrane in two ways: to the surface through intramembrane proteins (glycoproteins) or to lipids of the membrane (glycolipids).
The carbohydrates have several roles:
* Recognition: the carbohydrate units are highly antigenic (eg blood groups).
* Participation in the local environment, carbohydrates are highly polar molecules.
* Strengthening the membrane.
In animals, carbohydrates form a soft felting called glycocalyx. Membranes are fluid interface structures between the extracellular and intracellular medium that a cell can adjust in very specific ways to meet its needs. It plays both a role in communication with the outside world and a role of sorting molecules of interest to the cell. These properties make the membrane one of the most important organelles of the cell, the only one any cell can’t do without, even temporarily.
Thus, glucides play a major role at both the cellular level and at the immune system level.
Moreover, stocks of fats that the body produces in part from carbohydrates, and glycogen itself (long chains of starch as a store of carbohydrates in the liver and muscles) may also be affected by the contribution of abnormal carbohydrate molecules. An excellent example is provided by 2-deoxyglucose molecule in all points similar to glucose, apart from the lack of a single atom of oxygen, which accumulates in neurons and blocks the normal metabolism of glucose. The same fate may await all kinds of carbohydrate molecules denatured by cooking.
It is therefore not surprising that the intake of denatured carbohydrates, alone or stuck to other molecular debris (non-original glucoproteins, glucolipides etc.), disorganizes the functioning of the body and that replacing them is an early task of "reconstruction" or "normalization" ever since the natural diet allows it. That is, at least the assumption that seems best to stick with the facts.
-
I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?
If I trust the experience, the body is not mad: olfactogustative perception is organized in a way to make pleasant the flavor of helpful foods. I've never seen a case that puts this basic law in default, provided that the food is presented as natural (no processing changing its flavor neither seasoning, mixtures, preparations of any kind nor artificial selection etc...).
We should however be wary of the reciprocal: a tasteless natural food can be toxic, especially when the sense of smell or taste is not normally developed (as is the case in the culinary contex).
We know now that the flavors experienced by the child at an early growth stage influences the number of sensory receptors in the olfactory bulb. With the smells far away from those of natural products to which we have been confronted, we can understand that our olfactogustative operation is not as sensitive and reliable as it should be. There is also the issue of properly reading nutrition-related sensations, which may be biased due to a lack of learning, or to a learning itself biased.
The very purpose of instinctotherapy is to use what we have left of a normal instinctive operation to find anyway an optimal nutritional balance.
If you want a more precise answer, tell me what are the foods with which you have experienced changes in flavor such as the new flavors were still enjoyable and the precise circumstancies in which this happened.
Regards
GCB
-
I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?
The answer should be "yes" or "no" but sometimes things are not so simple like GCB remarked.
If you eat wild fruits (like safus or raspberries) you will notice that every single fruit tastes different. Eating such fruits a change of taste doesn't mean that you have to finish your meal. I stop eating if together with a change of taste my mind starts to roam. Other subjects than eating come into my mind, the pleasure of eating decreases.
-
Gcb,
Thank you for your answer.
Even the discomfort following the digestion may be the signal for a big job of the immune system (eg feelings of disgust, allergic reactions, etc..)
Why do you think that allergic reactions can be a sign fo detoxification?
What do you think are the culinary roots of allergies? How could allergies against pollen, pet hair or house dust mite be caused by abnormal molecules?
-
Gcb,
Thank you for your answer.
Why do you think that allergic reactions can be a sign fo detoxification?
What do you think are the culinary roots of allergies?
How could allergies against pollen, pet hair or house dust mite be caused by abnormal molecules?
So, what in itself is an "allergic" reaction? It is a reaction of the immune system that disturbs the host, because it is stronger than normally, resulting in unpleasant symptoms.
There is no clear boundary between so-called normal immune response against foreign molecules (called antigens to express the fact that they trigger antibody formation) and an allergic reaction, except that the latter seems to escape the normal regulatory mechanisms (which can be recognized in the silence of the organs).
Why can there be a relationship between NCS (New Chemical Species derived from processing that accumulate in the body) and common antigens (all molecules from the environment recognized as foreign by the organism: hair, dust mites etc.)?
For a very simple reason that we usually don’t think about enough: there are multitudes of "cross-reactions" between different antigens. "Cross reaction" means that two different antigens trigger the same reaction of the immune system because of similar molecular surfaces.
Principally, the immune system identifies each antigen and implements a specific reaction. Each antibody produced has molecular reliefs which correspond exactly to the reliefs of the antigenic molecule to which it is intended. There is little risk of confusion. But with the billions of possibilities, some reliefs still lead to confusion, calleds "cross reactions" by immunologist.
It is thus understandable that a reaction triggered by a new antigen may be of unexpected importance if a similar antigen has already been introduced into the body and has "sensitized" the immune system. Therefore, food antigens (incompletely degraded molecules crossing the intestinal barrier) can sensitize the immune system, so that other antigens (dust, pollen, etc.) will trigger apparently inexplicable cross-reactions. This will ultimately lead to an allergy to foreign antigens, without suspecting that the reaction itself is induced by food antigens.
The converse suggests that by stopping the penetration of these food antigens (switching to a natural diet which doesn't contain the same non-degradable molecules), the immune response to environmental antigens will decrease rapidly. This is what can commonly be observed after transition to instincto.
However, there are some cases where these reactions occur with delay. The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens, such as the effect of repetitive consumption of dairy products. Then it may happen years later that a new antigen, from an unusual food, from an insect bite, from a bacterium, will cause the awakening of the immune system (immunologists refer to it as "breakdown of tolerance"). This apparently inexplicable reaction thus may seem disproportionate.
Reactions of this type are called "detoxination reaction" in instincto slang. Note that antigens capable of "awakening" the immune system, can derive from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, or from another organism), but foods are most often sources of antigens that provoke a breakdown of tolerance.
This concept is compatible with conventional notions of immunology, except that immunologists have not yet realized the importance of food antigens since they are unable to show their effect in the too repetitive context of a traditionally cooked diet.
Regards
GCB
-
If people suffering from allergies are sensitized towards NCS, their immune system does not tolerate these NCS. So you think that at least people suffering from allergies are NOT in a state of tolerance towards NCS? What about people who do not suffer from allergies? Are they not sensitized against NCS and instead do tolerate them? I thought you claimed that all cooking people are more or less in a state of tolerance towards NCS. At least some other instinctos did claim that. What about people suffering from autoimmune diseases? Didn´t you claim that autoimmune reactions destroy NCS in the body?
If I were not in a state of tolerance towards NCS even when I still ate cooked food, why did I begin to react strongly to cooked food only after i had eaten strictly raw food for some time? And why did I react strongly to cooked food, although my allergies to pollen, pet hairs, house dust mites and insect poison (as well as my autoimmune diseases) had almost or completely disappeared? And why did my reactions to cooked food even became stronger the longer I ate rawfood?
The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens
Which antigens besides dairy antigens? Why should the organism tolerate some food antigens, but not tolerate other food antigens?
Best regards,
Hanna
-
If people suffering from allergies are sensitized towards NCS, their immune system does not tolerate these NCS. So you think that at least people suffering from allergies are NOT in a state of tolerance towards NCS? What about people who do not suffer from allergies? Are they not sensitized against NCS and instead do tolerate them? I thought you claimed that all cooking people are more or less in a state of tolerance towards NCS. At least some other instinctos did claim that. What about people suffering from autoimmune diseases? Didn´t you claim that autoimmune reactions destroy NCS in the body?
When you say " Tolerance towards NCS ", remember that there is a very large number of NCS. Tolerances, such as immune responses themselves, are specific. That is to say that one type of molecules will be tolerated while closely alike molecules will not. A tolerance develops under the effect of repeated administration of an antigen, usually after a period of sensitization with increasing reactions: it is as if the body understood that it becomes uselesss to fight against the repeatedly incoming antigen and waives its normal vigilance.
This is clearly the case with antigens from cow's milk: the baby often begins to react to the first bottle by diarrhea, vomiting, fever, buttons, etc.. Then the symptoms disappear and everyone is happy. It is however only a grace period, and it suffices to discontinue dairy products long enough, or to absorb similar cattle antigens to trigger an "allergic" reaction - so called because the reason for its importance remains unknown.
All signs show that the body gets rid itself of foreign molecules, so I think better to speak of detoxination reaction rather than allergic reaction. Especially since a correct practice of instincto keeps these reactions within perfectly endurable limits (whereas allergic presupposes unbearable disorders).
It seems that a prolonged practice of a denatured nutrition induces multiple tolerances, for a large part of the antigenic NCS due to traditional foods (milk, wheat, AGEs, etc..). It seems that cooking produces a lot of non-original antigens; for example roasted peanuts are 90 times more allergens than raw peanuts.
If this model is correct, the body of an individual contains a series of different molecules that may have accumulated in favor of specific tolerances, all of which will, following particular stimulations, give rise to reactions of detoxination. One of the challenges of instincto is precisely to ensure proper management of these reactions, so that they do not cause any damage due to an uncontrolled runaway.
I emphasize that these notions are not currently recognized by traditional medicine. The result is that many reactions remain unexplained, and it is very convenient to stick them the label of allergy. Allergies get traditionally explained by sensitization to an antigen (eg pollen, cat hair ...) repeatedly put in contact with the body. But this explanation does not explain everything, especially the fact that the practice of instincto very systematically allows to eliminate allergic symptoms (although it triggers the appearance of some in the beginning, especially if the practice does not comply with the rules having taken place along the experiments).
If I were not in a state of tolerance towards NCS even when I still ate cooked food, why did I begin to react strongly to cooked food only after i had eaten strictly raw food for some time? And why did I react strongly to cooked food, although my allergies to pollen, pet hairs, house dust mites and insect poison (as well as my autoimmune diseases) had almost or completely disappeared? And why did my reactions to cooked food even became stronger the longer I ate rawfood?
The answers are straightforward, from what has been said above. If the tolerance ending occurred after discontinuation of traditional foods became excessively strong for you, it's probably because you didn't practice the instincto in the rules. It takes very little for the symptoms that normally would be virtually silent to become intolerable.
The raw food brought you out of all kinds of tolerances, which was reflected by symptoms of “allergic” reactions, so that your body reacted again normally to antigens of cooked food. Immune vigilance is proof of good health. This vigilance has undoubtedly extended to more and more antigens along the duration of your practice.
Best regards
GCB
-
Define the term "true instinctive stop".
Do you only have noticed one form of instinctive stop namely the change from pleasant to unpleasant?
There are lot of different forms of instinctive stops beginning with an itching in the oral cavity and ending with an irritation of the throat. More forms here: Die instinktive Sperre (http://www.rohkostwiki.de/wiki/Die_instinktive_Sperre)
Dates and other cultivated fruits and vegetables normally have only faint stops but they have like you have mentioned. Mother nature can be very tender and smooth. In the case of ignoring faint stops she can be hard and cruel:
Hi Susan,
I don´t believe mother nature is cruel even if we ignore faint stops. But I think that we are supposed by mother nature to stop eating BEFORE there is a (clear) alliesthetic stop (= instinctive stop in gcb´s definition). I think that we are supposed to stop eating when there is an intuitive stop which usually occurs together with the first faint signs of an instinctive stop or BEFORE there is any sign of an instinctive stop. Intuition integrates information (including subconscious information) that otherwise would be unclear or contradictory. I think that a clear alliesthetic stop is just some kind of emergency brake.
-
The raw food brought you out of all kinds of tolerances, which was reflected by symptoms of “allergic” reactions, so that your body reacted again normally to antigens of cooked food. Immune vigilance is proof of good health.
I hope that you are right!
-
I don´t believe mother nature is cruel even if we ignore faint stops.
Maybe the word cruel is a little bit hard but the symptoms created by nature after ignoring faint stops are at least annoying: for example a sniffing nose, skin blemishes, bad temper or a lack of concentration.
But I think that we are supposed by mother nature to stop eating BEFORE there is a (clear) alliesthetic stop (= instinctive stop in gcb´s definition). I think that we are supposed to stop eating when there is an intuitive stop which usually occurs together with the first faint signs of an instinctive stop or BEFORE there is any sign of an instinctive stop. Intuition integrates information (including subconscious information) that otherwise would be unclear or contradictory. I think that a clear alliesthetic stop is just some kind of emergency brake.
Agreed. :)
-
The problem is primarily a question of vocabulary. What do we call "instinctive stop"? A sudden stop such as we can’t continue, as happens with pineapples, kiwis, figs ? Or a set of sensations that one must know how to interpret as a sign of satisfaction or danger?
Subsidiary question: Why are there products with which these events are very clear, almost intrangressibles, and others who are in much more rounded or blunt forms?
Animals stop extremely neatly with all natural products. We may therefore be tempted to think that’s not only the fault of the products, but also that of a bad learning of alliesthesic mechanisms, and perhaps of a genetic drift.
On the other hand, the animal probably does not only take account of flavor changes, but also of internal sensations associated with ingestion, such as feeling of fullness or satisfaction. Experience shows that if we want to balance properly, we must stop at the slightest sign of red light: either when the taste turns from pleasant to unpleasant or when the first message of the stomach occurs – "as soon as we feel that we have a stomach" ...
With selected products such as commercial fruit, we better stop as soon as the transition occurs from the luminous phase to the pleasant phase, what means we must at first for each natural product discover what the luminous phase means. It is easier to find the luminous phases when using our nose to select foods and by avoiding any overload or other physiological disorder.
So, I call "instinctive stop" all the physiological signals which must be considered to obtain optimal nutritional balance. All sorts of causes make these signals to be not always very clear, including the fact that they have not been learned in early childhood and not put in connection with the consequences of an overload on the physiological state.
This requires an apprenticeship, and the rules of instincto are nothing more than an attempt to define conditions that promote such a learning. Without these rules, there are often drifts that make nutritional balance unsatisfactory as people become accustomed to an overload condition, i.g. with selected fruit or meat.
It is clear that intuition also plays a role, but it is very difficult to discern the true insights of the inductions which the surrounding context may press on our mind. In addition, the line between true intuition and paranoia are unclear, so I prefer to speak at first only of the physiological aspects. Experience shows that this physiological aspects are sufficient (with unprocessed foods), this according to very specific criteria such as the regulation of the inflammatory tendency.
-
It is clear that intuition also plays a role, but it is very difficult to discern the true insights of the inductions which the surrounding context may press on our mind. In addition, the line between true intuition and paranoia are unclear
Agreed, but one can also become paranoid if one tries to detect even the slightest instinctive stop signal. In my case, the intuitive signal is so much clearer and easier to follow. Perhaps even animals follow their intution and not only alliesthetic and stomach signals when it comes to eating? Not only in deciding when to stop eating, but also in deciding when to eat, for example? If I would eat whenever a food smells and tastes good, I would probably eat way too often, late in the evening etc.
Experience shows that this physiological aspects are sufficient (with unprocessed foods), this according to very specific criteria such as the regulation of the inflammatory tendency.
But why did Iguana write:
"According to GCB and others, yes, especially milk and dairy cause inflammations. Cooked food also. Dried fruits, dates, honey maintain it and should be avoided as well in case of inflammation. Fresh fruits intake should be limited."
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg55385/#msg55385
Why do you think does fruit (and especially fruit with concentrated sugar, such as dates) promote inflammation?