Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Instincto / Anopsology => Topic started by: Hanna on October 03, 2011, 03:28:01 pm
-
I started my experience with instinctive nutrition 25 years ago
Congratulations on your 25th rawfood jubilee!
I started my rawfood experiments 16 years ago. I have eaten relatively strictly rawfood for 11 years now and I have eaten neither any cooked food nor milk products for seven and a half years now.
-
Thanks, Hanna!
It'll be 25 years in January, so not exactly yet! I never ate anything cooked nor any dairy ever since. I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial. ;)
-
I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial. ;)
What is the standard here for 'perfectly proven' assuming this means over those other WOE's (often never even practiced)
Has Dr. Fred bisici 80 years old and 40+ years raw vegan perfectly proven the efficacy of a raw vegan diet low in fruit sugar?
Raw Life Video Show Episode #20 Fred Bisci Speaks about different diets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShPbfaUAmo#ws)
Can we assume Art De Vany has perfectly proven that people can eat cooked foods everyday as long as they are paleo and have seemingly excellent health into their 70's and 80's?
The New Evolution Diet - Episode 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipvwSAzOEis#ws)
has Aajonus perfectly proven after 40 years that diets high in raw dairy are necessary for modern health?
I'm sure many will agree very much that people who live over 100 prove that cooked foods in general are healthy.
I'm guessing you think the answer is no to these in therms of PROOF, so I'm curious what the EXACT difference is without references to what theories say is good or bad in diet.
In other words, what are the vital statics, or other information used as comparisons to raw paleo or primal dieters, raw vegans or standards dieters - of which there are some examples in the 40+ year range. Without citing the theoretical possibilities of the diet..what are the concrete measurable comparisons to another persons health both in long term and with greatest results in fixing problems in short term?
further clarifying:
If someone who eats raw dairy or raw vegan or cooked foods and is seemingly healthy for decades and can claim superior health on online forums, how does one prove without citing the theoretical tenants (what is good or bad to eat) of what the dieter believes..that the instincto dieter is physically/emotionally etc.. more healthy?
are people willing to put up blood work or other vitals, or paranoias aside about mainstream testing methods, at least simple images of their teeth, skin, hair, eyes etc.. for examination to gauge vs cooked fooders or other raw gurus?
can a new member join the forum and claim eating instincto for 50 years and also perfectly prove something? What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...
-
What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...
None.
-
Thanks, Hanna!
It'll be 25 years in January, so not exactly yet! I never ate anything cooked nor any dairy ever since. I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial. ;)
Let's drink to that!
It works for Iguana.
I use instinctive techniques on the people I heal to choose the best fruits for them at that moment of illness, and it works and gives broad smiles.
-
KD: For me, it suffices (and is reassuring) to know that there are some long-term raw food dieters not DAMAGED by their raw food diet ;D and not LESS healthy than standard western dieters.
-
KD: For me, it suffices (and is reassuring) to know that there are some long-term raw food dieters not DAMAGED by their raw food diet ;D and not LESS healthy than standard western dieters.
ok. I'm just curious if you can list what criteria you are using to say even that. I assume you have met at meetups etc..?
You may be missing the point. On any health forum you can find people claiming the practice they have been doing is the best, the utmost healthy or the most efficient at this or that. This seems to be OK, or at least normal I guess. Then you have people that not only claim that this diet has provided THEM with health, but that regularly cite every other approach is actually unhealthy or harmful. Do you think this is ok? Without actual evidence it is ok to do this even though every possible WOE has such examples of being alive and typing? Not to mention many of those examples are stricken from participating that way (due often to pressing over facts or evidence, even when they have it) and others exempt from any other standards or observations of what might be considered healthy?
Can't you see how there is massive contradictions with this way of thinking - that as long as people are not-unwell (which to me also requires proof, I've met plenty standard dieters healthier than raw foodists - due to whatever factors) this makes it not only healthy but the absolute most healthy thing for everyone in every situation? As much so that when people are ill and looking for specific things they can do that this approach is literally given as the best solution? There must be some very specific thing, some exact experienced factor which makes it healthier or more healing than other options that have longevity - as per the few examples chosen - that makes it valid to discredit others? (which is different than citing satisfaction with ones own choices, or claiming to choose an OK approach)
It is apparently not ok for people to cite fruitarians or Aajonus or Art De Vany or any other person or gurus long term successes as even talking points in arguments on this forum..never-mind blanketly criticize any number of diets on raw paleo forum as being incorrect for not specifically following those diets.
Given your own..and the only other semi-member who qualifies as instincto but also questions some basic instincto tenets..and the fact that there seems to be no single other member since inception who has transitioned to pure instincto..It would seem people could be educated more on instinctos merits if there were at the very least examples of dieters once on other diets (raw paleo, primal, ZC etc...) to compare. That is, if not people actually making attempts to show and share their personal results..which is really what health forums are about, not about saying this or that is right indifferent to supplying or acknowledging evidence.
-
What is the standard here for 'perfectly proven' assuming this means over those other WOE's (often never even practiced)
Has Dr. Fred bisici 80 years old and 40+ years raw vegan perfectly proven the efficacy of a raw vegan diet low in fruit sugar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShPbfaUAmo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShPbfaUAmo&feature=related)
Can we assume Art De Vany has perfectly proven that people can eat cooked foods everyday as long as they are paleo and have seemingly excellent health into their 70's and 80's?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipvwSAzOEis&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipvwSAzOEis&feature=youtu.be)
has Aajonus perfectly proven after 40 years that diets high in raw dairy are necessary for modern health?
I'm sure many will agree very much that people who live over 100 prove that cooked foods in general are healthy.
I'm guessing you think the answer is no to these in therms of PROOF, so I'm curious what the EXACT difference is without references to what theories say is good or bad in diet.
In other words, what are the vital statics, or other information used as comparisons to raw paleo or primal dieters, raw vegans or standards dieters - of which there are some examples in the 40+ year range. Without citing the theoretical possibilities of the diet..what are the concrete measurable comparisons to another persons health both in long term and with greatest results in fixing problems in short term?
further clarifying:
If someone who eats raw dairy or raw vegan or cooked foods and is seemingly healthy for decades and can claim superior health on online forums, how does one prove without citing the theoretical tenants (what is good or bad to eat) of what the dieter believes..that the instincto dieter is physically/emotionally etc.. more healthy?
are people willing to put up blood work or other vitals, or paranoias aside about mainstream testing methods, at least simple images of their teeth, skin, hair, eyes etc.. for examination to gauge vs cooked fooders or other raw gurus?
can a new member join the forum and claim eating instincto for 50 years and also perfectly prove something? What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...
Ah - KD - the more I read of what you have to say the more I like you. Perceptive - intelligent.
I would say that what Iguana has put forth as proof is that just like the rest of the old-timers in any style of eating that it is POSSIBLE to eat such and such a way and be healthy. This is a pretty big statement when it comes to eating raw animal foods as most of society thinks that eating one little bit of raw meat will give you parasites and you will die a quick and horrible death.
There is another level though. In Instincto - and tell me if I'm correct here Iguana - there is the emphasis in trusting oneself above others. Smelling, tasting, feeling - using all your senses to determine what food is good for you. The basic rules against eating foods conjured up later in human history is done in order to keep one senses pure enough to determine for oneself what one "should" be eating. There's no one saying that you have to eat this or that to be healthy or so and so percent or buy this gadget or buy this product. No one is saying - do it like me or you are doing it wrong. The whole message is that if it tastes bad, smells bad and feels bad - it probably IS bad is important. I can't believe how many people go on and on and on with a particular diet looking and feeling horrible because someone else told them it was good for them. It boggles my mind. Instincto's message, in my view, is that YOU are the guru. If you tune in and listen to your own body, you have all that you need to make the right decisions for yourself. I really love that. With Iguana as an example (ok - so he can't prove anything just like the rest), at least it can open your mind to a way which can then be a new choice and perhaps will give someone pause when they eat up whatever someone ELSE is trying to feed them and perhaps ask the question if it wouldn't be better to trust themselves knowing that others seem to have done that a long time and come out ok.
I think Iguana doing his thing a long time counts more because what's he saying is: Don't listen to what I eat - listen to what YOUR body wants to eat. That sets him apart in my eyes.
-
No one is saying - do it like me or you are doing it wrong.
By the way, I’ve been thinking for a long time that I should once denounce this idea commonly expressed here : "experiment and see what works for you." Because it’s impossible to notice the long-term harmful effects of a stuff and certain foods such as coffee, beer or even some drugs can cause a short-term sensation of well-being while being particularly noxious in the long-term.
François
-
I can't believe how many people go on and on and on with a particular diet looking and feeling horrible because someone else told them it was good for them. It boggles my mind. Instincto's message, in my view, is that YOU are the guru. If you tune in and listen to your own body, you have all that you need to make the right decisions for yourself. I really love that. With Iguana as an example (ok - so he can't prove anything just like the rest), at least it can open your mind to a way which can then be a new choice and perhaps will give someone pause when they eat up whatever someone ELSE is trying to feed them and perhaps ask the question if it wouldn't be better to trust themselves knowing that others seem to have done that a long time and come out ok.
Dorothy I think maybe your ability to see good in things is clouding your observations here or perhaps you haven't witnesses enough proselytizing to understand you are citing the exact opposite of how it is. - or my impression anyway.
More than any other person/ideology is there such a large percentage of posts about someone doing something wrong or harmful. Often the victim is a new member who never has a single other post or someone looking to tweak a single part of their diet in witch they have no interest in instincto. There is difference between making someone question their modern WOE and downright making a claim that what they are doing is incorrect. If people are not speaking from their own experience and want to push one thing over another thing don't you think it requires some kind of evidence? As I said/meant...many other people have seemingly good results and are not even aloud to have their say whatsoever on this forum..even with evidence. According to instincto..all of those WOEs are not different paths to success as you say but to disease of some sort, going against nature an' all.
I don't know what you mean about how others equally can't prove things. I guess it depends on what you mean by proof. Some basic stuff is good enough for me personally. It would be nice to have general standards and measurements we could all agree on but my expectation for evidence in this case is pretty lax. If people can simply provide documentation or even anecdotes about people on past diets and/or medical documents..doesn't sound like a whole lot to ask. Of course its not really proof either..but better than what we have presently: the same credibility any fruitarian/breatharian has over the internet which is some kind of idea which proves the reality rather than the reverse. The point was more that 0 others are aloud the luxury on this forum to claim anything as having superiority without evidence. Notice claims of "the Bear" Aajonus etc.. consistently get shot down no matter how many examples of people's 'cures'. Of course in the case of "The Bear", this is a perfect example longevity might not be the best case if their are examples of cancer et al..which is why when people arn't 100% forthcoming about their health that seemingly perfect ideas can shed poor light.
So I think you missed the purpose of those specific examples. Yes we should be grateful to have long term examples of people eating raw animal foods..for the issues you brought up, but should we also be grateful to have examples of people that have eaten only fruits for decades or claim to drink only water to gauge what is potentially healthful or don't we need other basic evaluations for such people independent of what our disputed ancestral knowledge says? Afterall, even if we have a dimensional window into the past that proves man ate nothing but meats or nothing but fruits..does this immediately change what kind of life spans, energy level, joy, physique etc..people today experience?
I suggest looking at some of the other threads in this sub-forum and notice how like on frutarian forums that even if the few instincto members mention that they are doing their own interpretation or experimenting with leaving out this or that - they are immediately ridiculed as if paleo man ever did such things etc...
---
The issue is pretty simple. notice how many posts in other non-instincto forums plug the instinco diet directly, ignoring the subject at hand as bogus or downright saying it is harmful based entirely on instincto principles and not on past experiences.
[in a health forum on liver and gallbladder flushing]
I don't know what's that kind of diet you describe, but it looks fancy to me. All I can say is "eat instincto" and you would be all right.
but also as you say about blindly following a diet iregardless of physical outcomes..the setting for that is perfect.
If someone already follows and idea that 1.) everything in nature is perfect (no to little disease) 2.) that this also applies to modern situations. then of course the solution is only to attempt to restore some balance in nature. Other than this in itself being an idea that is seen by some as naive, it raises the problem you suggest that one can believe they are doing everything absolutely correct..shunting all the things they should and following all the rules...yet be pushed up a wall with no other options inside that idea.
-
Thanks Dorothy, good post ;). The only thing I don’t totally agree with is this quote:
The basic rules against eating foods conjured up later in human history is done in order to keep one senses pure enough to determine for oneself what one "should" be eating.
As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the instincto discovery, in the ‘60s, the pioneers were eating all raw, unmixed and unprocessed but including grain and dairy. Then, they found out that each time some of them drank milk after a sufficiently long period without it, they started to have troubles such as infected wounds or even spontaneous infections. Other series of experiment showed that behavior’s troubles in mice used for experiments, other animals and even humans were linked with wheat consumption. Thus, just by eating 100% raw unprocessed food for a sufficient length of time and carefully observing the results showed that we are not adapted to typically Neolithic food such as grain and dairy. The theoretical explanations came after the empirical findings.
(quotes of Dorothy and of me)
Mister KD, I don’t have the time to read and try to understand you second post above and start again to interminably argue with you. But about your first post above, may I remind you what my angry friend Alphagruis and now (I suppose) your translator-friend wrote for us:
A physicist friend of mine, Gerard Gewinner, has at my request written the following text intended to those who may think that feeling better shortly after a diet change is a kind of proof that their new diet is more healthy :
The response of complex systems such as the biosphere, the climatic system or a living organism to various perturbations is...complex. It exhibits usually an extended range of response or correlation delays that implies different things happening at largely different time scales as a consequence of the perturbation. Clearly such systems display historical character with their state at time t depending essentially on past events at all time scales.
In contrast many simple physical or technological systems such as a Geiger counter or a photomultiplier are characterized by and rely on the existence of a single relaxation time that measures the typical time scale over which memory of past events is definitely lost.
This situation makes the experimental investigation of complex systems quite difficult, involved and generates possibly a lot of confusion. For instance in life science this means that the effect of a dietary change cannot be simply and reliably inferred from short term studies but should in principle be carefully observed over several generations. Just think of the famous Pottenger experiment on cats.
That is also why the experiments mother Nature has already done on our species in the past such as reported by anthropologists on our untouched by civilization hunter-gatherer ancestor's way of life and diet, are so tremendously important to acknowledge, learn everything we can about and finally try to take advantage of. Similarly in medical care if a patient feels better today, this unfortunately does not necessarily mean that it is merely the result of the drug swallowed or dietary change made yesterday.
-
both Art de Vany and Fred Bisici (and myself...) above would both say they have trouble with milk and grain, yet this does not makes every aspect of their path unquestionable and every solution they believe applicable to everyone on this forum. They cannot use their longevity to make a case in an argument over all issues and similarly to your own - their beliefs do not represent what most people on this forum believe and practice to the best of their knowledge. Without specific analysis of how healthy these 'pioneers' are and based only on their 'discoveries' they are just as useful or useless to people as Tibetan monks or breatharians in establishing what is the best diet for a modern person. Their discoveries just as useful/useless as the lipid hypothesis and other discoveries that seem to make sense but don't always line up with reality.
As far as the average visitor or forum participant is concerned, people can be typing up bullshit from their death-bed about how the world is..and this has nothing to do with anything unless people are actually contrasting and comparing their results with other raw (and cooked) food approaches. If someone were to present superior health eating almost entirely milk or grain products when they tried other approaches, this SHOULD make a reasonable person re-asses their belief..not assume that person's health was bad without the possibility of being otherwise.
Don't know what you are talking about with translation or this Heisenbergian thing but this seems to be some kind of excuse about 'relativity' and not needing to actually showing evidence. Something to excuse every time you comment that sick people just need to do what you and and your philosophy says and do not need to address their D3, B-12, bringing consciousness to their fat and carb consumption or every possible thing brought up here that makes this forum a 'forum' and not a vehicle for any kind of ideology..even "raw paleo" as being absolute AFAIK
-
KD - you are right - I have not gone and read the threads in this area yet - just the generalized theories. Also, what you say about people being able to write anything on forums is also true - I learned that the hard way. Blood work, doctors and pictures all present problems however. What happens when someone is diabetic and has terrible blood work indicating the beginnings of heart disease and just about any healthful diet has instances of improving those numbers? What happens if someone feels tremendously better and has healed terrible diseases through a diet yet their numbers are not good or there is a "bad" number determined by medical science based upon "the average"? For instance, here's a made up case, what if a raw meat eater were to have a very high white cell count because they ingest bacteria and parasites that their immune systems have to fight but they are outrageously healthy otherwise and in fact - perhaps the fact that their immune systems have to fight makes them actually stronger?
The issue with diet protocols always comes down to the all too human foible of believing that because something has had a good response in one person it will necessary be good for everyone and promoting it as such. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this. Even if someone does present "proof" does it necessarily mean that it is what is right for me based on my health history, diseases, genetics, constitution, lifestyle, priorities etc?
How can we tell if a diet is good for us or not? This is why at least the theory of instincto is appealing to me.
Even Pottenger's (which I haven't read about in decades so please forgive me if I don't have a full memory or understanding) to the best of my recollection started to get good results quite quickly. That's why they noticed that when they ran out of their regular food and gave the cats they were experimenting on for another reason raw meat that they noticed better health quite quickly and decided to make that a subject to be studied rather than what they started off to study and that's how come there were many generations to come at all.
One might not get the full results of a new way of eating immediately, but good results from a good change are not that slow in coming and when you get used to using your senses and your intuition around foods then the positive feedback often can become immediate as the opposite can be true like when something is really bad the body can try to get it out immediately by purging it. When you are used to eating well it can become obvious when something is not good for you. Even if it would take generations to get to the full benefits - you don't have to wait that long to get clues.
And....... even if it can take decades for full negative affects to take place........ more often than not I bet that there are clues earlier on if one is willing to acknowledge them.
What Iguana says about sharing the experiences of many having the same experience when drinking milk or eating wheat can be useful. It's good to generally hear how different foods affect others. I find it better that the general admonitions not to eat these foods was not theoretical but from actual experiences. That says to me as a thinking person that all I would have to do is not eat these things, put them back in my diet and see if I have the same experience to know if this is particular to that group of people or more general and if that included me or not.
It is the only logical conclusion inmho to take anything that anybody says is a global truth about diet with a grain of salt, analyze it logically and then see if it applies individually. The sad thing is that our societal systems teach us not to question those that we perceive to have authority. Authority changes with environment. I can't tell you how glad I am that you are here KD!
-
Someone asked me this question by PM :
I seen that you eat peas, and I've read that they are apparently not paleo because they're legumes? What's your opinion on them?
Here’s my reply, as it concurs with what you wrote, Dorothy:
Hi,
I don't know, the instincto practice is based on results of meticulous experiments on hundreds of animals (mostly mice) and humans which lasted several years, during the 60s and 70s. It's these experiments that showed the nuisance of cooked food, dairy and grain (especially wheat). As far as I know, it didn’t show that legumes were harmful.
I don’t think there’s a clear line between what is paleo and what is not, except for cereals and dairy which are clearly Neolithic.
Cheers
François
-
KD - you are right - I have not gone and read the threads in this area yet - just the generalized theories. Also, what you say about people being able to write anything on forums is also true - I learned that the hard way.
Basically people seeming to do well though any method (claims, photos, blood work) don't prove something is good. People proposing the absolute best solution for everyone or ideas about what the ideal human diet do need to at least meet basic specifications or expectations that can be met on other approaches. This isn't just physical measurable things..but also actually curing conditions. At the very least one would have to provide information that one doesn't have basic conditions associated with the very things one claims the diet helps, that it is indeed carrying the theoretical weight..don't you think?
The issue with diet protocols always comes down to the all too human foible of believing that because something has had a good response in one person it will necessary be good for everyone and promoting it as such. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this. Even if someone does present "proof" does it necessarily mean that it is what is right for me based on my health history, diseases, genetics, constitution, lifestyle, priorities etc?
yeah but this like the 'species specific diet" on fruitarian forums is exactly NOT what is suggested with instincto. like Hygiene it states that there is one way, that there are no foods -natural or processed (supplements, medicines in plants, fermented,heated etc...)- that one can artificially add to fix something, and no "diets" (intentionally removing or eating any food) or other food related therapies that will be beneficial other than following ones "instincts", or at least none that will have no consequences. So everyone else is in fact wrong. There is no heaps of evidence to the contrary that can sway this idea that the best results happen in such way so it should only be logical that people should have unequivocally way better health results in all aspects. This all is also completely besides the point to the actual criticisms expressed by members here and ex instincto dieters about how closely a moderns persons instincts go to actually manifesting a natural diet.
Its not that Art De Vany looking good or having good bloodwork or whatever PROVES anything about cooking per se.... If someone claims that cooking is poison and then die within weeks of making that statement at 25..wouldn't that suggest something about Art's decisions being less unrealistic than whatever the other persons idea was? Just a made up example of course, but that is the crux of the comparrison to provide what Hanna suggested which is evidence that people are if not healthier..but at the very least not suffering problems that people on other approaches do not have and suggesting those are worse.
There are lots of ways to misinterpret medical data such s WBC, BG etc..and ways people might differ on raw diets. The thing is lets say a vegan is saying one should not supplement with b-12 in any situation (to someone questioning such) but then tests on that person say b-12 is beyond low and the other symptoms are made clear some way to others. Is it not accurate to say that the tests and observations of those symptoms says something about their original idea?
Also of what percentage of people follow an approach would one suspect that such a pleasurable worry free approach that would not be worth the burden of returning to cooking, or eating AV recipes every day, is perhaps not 100% problem free? If 1-2 percent of such pioneers still follow that approach can one cite the total infallibility of such theories?
-
(…) is exactly NOT what is suggested with instincto. like Hygiene it states that there is one way, that there are no foods -natural or processed (supplements, medicines in plants, fermented,heated etc...)- that one can artificially add to fix something, and no "diets" (intentionally removing or eating any food) or other food related therapies that will be beneficial other than following ones "instincts", or at least none that will have no consequences. So everyone else is in fact wrong.
Here goes Mister KD explaining what « instincto » states…
I should probably leave the moderation of this section and let this duty to you, KD since you know better than me what «instincto» suggests and states. You can also write much longer posts and faster than I can read, so I think you’re the right person for that task.
-
as usual, points are never addressed and blanket 'don't have time' or other excuses are given. If i've stated something wrong merely correct it.
I havn't professed an idea is superior, only that I and others have strong suspicions that instincto claims are superior or even beneficial for health. Until -and ideally also after -these suspicions are 'proven' unfair, people shouldn't claim that others shouldn't do this or that based on this concept...and only share their experiences or share things as ideas not facts.
You have no time..yet you write posts all the time..including during this thread. I also have things to do like a full time job, another 'job' of sorts, and other passions and priorities- and yet I continue to press other points rather than beating the dead horse as you like to say about:
how you literally actually said that you and ONE PERSON you have presumalably now never met (correct me here also) know virtually nothing about other than she shares your idea: has not only proven..but "perfect proven" your idea is healthy.
so you could reverse the favor by at least answering the questions that clearly debunk at the very least how your ideas have not resulted in success for everyone as if that 1-2 % is not correct..it surely ain't 100% or close.
yet
my predictions is you'll lay low for a bit then be back similarly with absolutist statements in the other sub-forums like the two things I quoted just within the last week or so...being absolutely ridiculous assertions of dogma into real life serious issues which could have harmful consequences.
-
as usual, points are never addressed and blanket 'don't have time' or other excuses are given. If i've stated something wrong merely correct it.
What are the points? If your posts were clear, polite, accurate and concise, I could answer but I don’t want to read and painstakingly try to understand endless pages of aggressive and intricate verbiage. Have you read the GCB’s book which is freely available in English online and for which I’ve provided the link http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html) several times ?
Moreover, I'm not the lawyer to the defense of Mr. Instincto and I’m not a shareholder of “Instincto Inc.” I’ve just experimented instinctive nutrition for soon 25 years and I happen to know personally the persons at the origin of the experiment and theory. I don’t pretend the theory is right, it’s just a theory like any other and as such it will have to be modified or superseded in the future (if there’s a future for our civilization) once we have a better understanding of the nature and the universe .
Anyway, you seem to have grown a personal detestation of me, you previously called me a liar and you wrote that I presented myself dishonestly. (You should have been banned for that but I didn’t want you to be banned.). Thus, whatever I may answer, you won’t believe me, so why should I undertake such an effort?
-
KD wrote:
"yeah but this like the 'species specific diet" on fruitarian forums is exactly NOT what is suggested with instincto. like Hygiene it states that there is one way, that there are no foods -natural or processed (supplements, medicines in plants, fermented,heated etc...)- that one can artificially add to fix something, and no "diets" (intentionally removing or eating any food) or other food related therapies that will be beneficial other than following ones "instincts", or at least none that will have no consequences. So everyone else is in fact wrong"
That's disappointing. :( I guess I far from fit the extincto bill then as I love ferments and herbs.
The point you made KD about the person dying of exactly the diseases that their particular diet are supposed to heal is valid. When doing my cancer research for instance I learned that Clarke who developed zappers and an elaborate system of curing cancer died of cancer it made me stop on a dime and I threw out the whole lot of what she wrote if it was exclusively her creation and felt lucky I found out she died of cancer before trying out a zapper and perhaps doing harm.
But does this mean that one would throw out an entire way of eating only because one person of many dies of cancer? That's a serious question for you. If someone eating a 100% raw paleo diet in this future for instance dies of cancer - does that negate the diet? What if some people are cured and some people die with a diet? Maybe no diet alone can cure certain cancers in certain people at certain stages and some cancers are based upon exposures and not diet. We are faced with the same problem as judging a whole diet based upon one person living to a hundred in perfect health that promotes such a diet aren't we? We can't say that a diet is good because one person says that it is good or if they give some evidence of perfect health and vitality into old age so we can't exactly say that a diet that many say is good for them is necessarily bad because one or several people did poorly on it while others thrive.
What is needed is double blind studies of large groups of people to be able to make generalizations - and that's not about to happen when it comes to raw food diets. Your b12 example is a great example. There can be vegans with normal b12 and low b12 and meat eaters that are normal and low in b12. The problems come when someone says that b12 shouldn't be supplemented no matter how you feel or what your test results are because their way is best for everyone and therefore b12 is not an issue and more importantly if someone blogs and states that a vegan diet is ideal for everyone when they themselves feel sick and have record low b12. It's the putting the hands over the eyes and fingers in the ears to differing results that is the issue. Take that even further - if they do have perfect b12 - is that necessarily because of the diet and is having perfect numbers necessarily a product of diet if referring to just one person or do we need to consider genetics, or past eating or a thousand other variables.
The only way to make progress figuring out what generally works since there are no studies is for us to openly share our very subjective experiences - good and bad - without attachment or censorship with some humility that we don't actually know - because we don't. We only have a small sampling of subjective data.
-
Anyway, you seem to have grown a personal detestation of me, you previously called me a liar and you wrote that I presented myself dishonestly. (You should have been banned for that but I didn’t want you to be banned.). Thus, whatever I may answer, you won’t believe me, so why should I undertake such an effort?
I think its the other way around.
What are the points? If your posts were clear, polite, accurate and concise, I could answer but I don’t want to read and painstakingly try to understand endless pages of aggressive and intricate verbiage.
Simple quesitons to answer:
mostly yes or no
you certainly have the expertise to answer almost all of them off the top of your head in 5 minutes.
Was it ok to use the phrase 'perfectly proven' that an entire way of thinking is healthy considering you were referring to two people with seemingly no real life assessment or any real comparison standards or to others who have competing health ideas?
I had asked: What actual evidence is being put forward here as proof?...
and you said none.
Do you agree that without additional evidence this is no more usefull to members than that of raw vegans or cooked foooders with such longevity when it comes to which specific diet to choose on RPF or elsewhere?
Will you retract the original comment and admit you have not proven anything other raw animal food diets have not without proper evidence?
Will you or others provide blood work, specific photos as requested etc..? (with the expectation that people can't make 100% solid judgements on these)
Do you think if you see qualities in others that you believe are bad that you can trace it back to your thoughts about their diet? Is it understandable for people to question the diet of instinctos if they suspect their health doesn't match up with the healthiest possible human diet or even just other people trying other things?
You cite experiments of instinctos on humans and mice, how specifically do these experiements differ from those of Cordain, the Medical prfession, raw vegans or any others undertaken since the history of science? Havn't these produced drastically different conclusions? Are these instincto conclusions now half a decade old absolutely unquestionable with endless research following? What if people have proven these experiments wrong (on animals or humans) since?
Is it possible these experiments do not lead to finding the idea human diet or that other current methods might estimate a better diet?
How many of these original experimenters or instincto dieters continued with the diet? How many went on to to other raw food diets? Other diets?
Other than social obligations, why would someone go off an instincto diet?
Is it at all possible that some people did not thrive on an instincto diet?
If these ideas are not unquestionable and you are presenting a theory, is it OK to tell people that what they are doing is "wrong" (see quotes in thread - or many other statements) and to give the kinds of 'advice' you give on a regular basis?
Particulary without above 'proof' shouldn't one be required to imply opinion based on a single theory when its not actually based on experience with a particular thing at hand (or uses other 'present company' member's 'statistics' or other statistics that people actually have some access to) ?
And slightly more complicated: What specific criteria do you use to measure your health? To criticize others as unhealthy? Do you suspect that after 25 years of health experimentation that your health has thrived more than anyone else on any other approach?
---
Look forward to your comments
-
But does this mean that one would throw out an entire way of eating only because one person of many dies of cancer? That's a serious question for you. If someone eating a 100% raw paleo diet in this future for instance dies of cancer - does that negate the diet?
Nah
Cancer is really complicated, but things like b-12, d3, not as much. Ideas about sugars and cancer, fats and heart disease..these are issues where people can share information..but if someone outright makes a claim that x or y isolated thing is not necessary and ends up having issues with that...well that is what I meant. Just explaining my example with the vegans of course. We all want to be following the diet that prevents diseases even though we can do our best to cite the likely causation. People need to be honest though and give credit when its due to other factors and ideas, not be dense around ideas which seem true. If people die of cancer, certainly its more of an issue if they are saying that the diet is mans natural diet or it has better records of curing such..although even then unnatural things certainly factor in.
If someone makes a statement like one shouldn't take supplements (in the case of veganism) or Don't need X ammount of D3 or whatever..they need to take responsiblity for that, that they know they arn't giving somone harmful adivce, and certainly that they know they are actually thriving on the ammount they have. Certainly they should know if they themselves are meeting at least medical levels of such and in the paleo world - undergoing the strains and stress a paleo person would and not laying around- before making a judgement on those things. Whether supplements are bad or good, the concept is an important one as to whether people need to make non-dogmatic and proactive steps to increase their health.
---
Much of what i'm talking about applies only to people making sweeping generalizations. Oviously everyone makes claims that they don't know 100%. Ideally people express things from their experience but I'm not claiming I or other forum members don't make claims that might not be true. But likelwise generally people arn't saying that if they just do this or that they WILL be insured anything,...nevermind be absolutely healthy! Saying that if people don't do X, give up Y etc... or be unhealthy is even worse IMO and so obviously false when looking at the world as a whole as to what 'works' or doesn't.
-edit
I agree with your concerns about interpretations and such. When you say "Take that even further - if they do have perfect b12 - is that necessarily because of the diet and is having perfect numbers necessarily a product of diet if referring to just one person or do we need to consider genetics, or past eating or a thousand other variables. " this is exactly what I meant by photos, data etc..not proving anything (in the positive) as preexisting health factors in to alot of things. Of course ones health in general or how one feels or thinks they feel is factored in by such as well. So you are right in people having knowledge and experience where it not being always applicable transferring to people that don't absorb b-12 well...or whatever.
..but poor data results and yes, photos I do believe will call BS on some things, particularly eternal youth or other claims of say fruitarians. I mean being vit A deficient while eating tons of fruit...that means something real considering it is abundant in fruit etc...
-
I wrote you guys a four page letter but it got lost in the loading process. here's a summary:
Basically
KD is right
Dorothy is right
Iguana(Francois) is right as well
Everyone made valid points/arguments. "YOU are the guru!" <--that line will be stolen) but in all seriousness KD isn't wrong when he says that basic citation and/or scientific evidence should be submitted when people have the access to the right info, even just a tiny bit. Problem with the paleo community is that we are based off testimonials by gurus coming up with a brand name diet and not a learned professional(not that i claim they're better or preferred) because there is no industry or special interest behind raw organic foodstuffs compared to processed grain products to fund the research. so if you want to win over people similar to KD, you got to approach in a rational scientific manner sometimes.
Dorothy seems to be valid and its funny because KD is basically saying alot of what Dorothy is saying, but somehow missing each other's point
Iguana(Francois) is right on with the geiger counter example, and that nothing is concrete and everything is tentative. it can be inferred that by what both KD and Iguana seem to both agree on is this is a forum and that we are here to share experiences(usually in the case of a forum like this) and communicate so that we can come to a greater understanding about ourselves and our experiences on particular diets, which leads me to ask....
So how do you all generally feel when you eat fat mono? :)
-
KD, didn´t you notice the irony in my answer to you? And, as I understood it, Iguana´s claim ("perfectly proven" etc.) was ironic too. Therefore, he used a smiley, and therefore, he admitted already that (of course) nothing is perfectly proven.
-
KD, didn´t you notice the irony in my answer to you? And, as I understood it, Iguana´s claim ("perfectly proven" etc.) was ironic too. Therefore, he used a smiley, and therefore, he admitted already that (of course) nothing is perfectly proven.
Hanna right..just like other times I know if he responds at all its going to be some kind of semantic arguing. Just like my 'bannable offence' of claiming untruths and politics (not actually answwering questions and finding other ways to ignore arguments or bury them, also: I have power to ban you for asking questions etc..). The denied-and-eventually-sorta-admitted-but-not accusation before if I remeber was precisely the same..that comments were specifically given in completely unrealated topics than instincto. That these subjects were poo pooed without any real knowledge of the subject yet claiming people were outright wrong because it went against 'nature' or instincto rules. Even though countless examples were given that wern't even my words (forum quotes) and obviously showed this to be true..these were 'mean' accusations on my part...
above is says "I don’t pretend the theory is right" if this not an untrue statement and 'perfectly proven' was just some sarcastic way of saying all is realtive in the universe, why is it that its ok to consistantly reference other things as the wrong way of looking at things and then cite the 'success' of insincto diets without evidence? It would be almost fine if this was limited to helping people thrive on the instincto forum but it is not. Is it it always sarcastic to make these claims on other forums (either to cite individual health or a movement as a whole) without any other information about their health?
so regardless of whether I'm nitpicking on things here and there..there are questions that need to be answerwed about the actual results of this health experimentation that is often non-sarcastically presented as either flawless, perfectible applicable to all situations (with confidence that people don't need to worry about x or HAVE to drop Y) , and always yielding better results for short and long terms than other processes.
-
Hey PrimalPrime - I like to go back and forth with KD even when we basically agree hashing out the details in his viewpoints because the more I do that the more I learn from him.
KD - I get your points about the real obvious basics of b12 and d3 and vitamin A as generally accepted indicators and that a picture can disprove claims to eternal youth etc. I mean - your pictures speak volumes! It's generalizations with even these though without enough data based on individuals that is always tricky still of course, but you understand this I'm sure.
When I was hanging out on the food forum with many vegans -- because "some" raw vegans claim that the diet will keep you young and vigorous and looking great -- when older people posted their pictures they were torn apart even though the picture showed someone aging naturally or even better than average and the person did not claim that they were going to be young forever. So pictures can be tricky when it comes to regular non-guru folk. Again, history, genetics, other factors. For instance, after what I went through in the last year I would hate for anyone to judge my diet based upon how I look now! :o
Just to make it clear - we are agreeing and I'm supporting most of what you are saying and agreeing and restating and you can express yourself so well - so maybe I don't even have to bother - but I will anyway: It sure is not easy to evaluate diet when it comes to a bunch of individuals and little scientific data on any raw diet and health. Maybe a billionaire will join us one day and decide to fund some studies - fingers crossed.
Your admonitions regarding be careful to not say that a diet is categorically right and another wrong I am agreeing with you 100% on. It's an easy thing to fall into even without realizing it because as humans we are designed to generalize and it relates to our language abilities -- one word for all those things that are tall and have leaves. We don't see each tree completely on its own terms. This tree with this thing on it called fig gives me food and gives me good feelings so all figs are good and I need to bring all my friends to trees like this and show them. It's part of our survival skills as humans. At this point in our evolution this deeply ingrained desire to generalize can get in the way sometimes. It's can be a challenge to determine when a generalization is useful and when it is getting in the way of perception.
-
KD, didn´t you notice the irony in my answer to you? And, as I understood it, Iguana´s claim ("perfectly proven" etc.) was ironic too. Therefore, he used a smiley, and therefore, he admitted already that (of course) nothing is perfectly proven.
Not that I am one to balk at sarcasm..but I am somewhat disapointed when you (who I know has profesed intelligent concerns for both instincto 'rules' and possible problems with low-carb or other philosophies) that you also could have answered the question non sarcastically and not implying similar 'faith' that as long as people are raw and following whatever diet then they must be healthy. At least that was how I see it.
"KD: For me, it suffices (and is reassuring) to know that there are some long-term raw food dieters not DAMAGED by their raw food diet and not LESS healthy than standard western dieters. " I really don't see this as ironic..i mean..I can see the irony that there have been so many people damaged by their dietary philosophy and the irony is people can get away with such limited evidence that their diet is actually healthy...but it seems that you are saying that what peopel provide as 'healthy' is good enough.
I would think you would also know very well the kind of ignoring of concerns, or derailing/forgetting old discussions, even amongst people that follow instincto priciples to some degee.
yours and susans comments in this thread
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/msg46451/#msg46451 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/msg46451/#msg46451)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/msg47948/#msg47948 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/instinctos-tropical-paradise/msg47948/#msg47948)
or
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/study-low-carb-diets-and-death-risk/msg53872/#msg53872 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/study-low-carb-diets-and-death-risk/msg53872/#msg53872)
and
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg41720/#msg41720 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg41720/#msg41720)
heres a good quote from phil in a these round about discussions..of course the typical backpeddling of absolutes needs context to understand
I don't consider what GCB has done in promoting fruits as part of his dietary regime that he continues to promote on the Internet to be just semantics, no. He isn't just sharing his success story, he's promoting a diet for humanity. Do you consider his positive remarks about fruits in Anopsology and in this forum and on his website to be just semantics?
Hey PrimalPrime - I like to go back and forth with KD even when we basically agree hashing out the details in his viewpoints because the more I do that the more I learn from him.
KD - I get your points about the real obvious basics of b12 and d3 and vitamin A as generally accepted indicators and that a picture can disprove claims to eternal youth etc. I mean - your pictures speak volumes! It's generalizations with even these though without enough data based on individuals that is always tricky still of course, but you understand this I'm sure.
Yeah I havn't felt at all like I was arguing your beliefs, only pointing out what might not be totally visible just from reading this thead. eg: when you say things like 'be your own guru' and "No one is saying - do it like me or you are doing it wrong. " it clearly doesn't line up with the quote I provided as well as countless posts by Iguanna and GCB. I respect you own reasoning or experience and just filling in more RPF experience... :)
I disagree somewhat without how sophisticated one needs to measure such things. I don't think we need to wait around for serious studies..I agree somewhat on data comparrisons..but still hold there are indicators to examined in the format I mentioned that are pretty transparent. To be totally clear I refrenced de vany et all because I never think pictures (mine, others) prove someone is healthy..but when people present ideas that they can be contradicted by such examinations ( "I'm a diabetic and can eat all the raw sugar I want yet my BG is 300", or "my diet makes me young and strong" when having osteoporosis at 30 or something etc...
everyone isn't under the thumb of scrutiny to prove their diet has made them superwoman/superman..just when people consistatnly profess things like what is natural or what is necessary for health while not provding evidence for doing better or even "less worse" than others. In that case, one can't hide behind "not being a guru" or "not professing to be right" if all the comments take on definitive expertise in terms of what is right or wrong for all people.
-
I'm not reading all the long posts in this thread... but this seems to have turned out to be another anti-instincto bashing everything. Right?
Can we just drop this? It's a repeat performance of some old song a few months ago.
I'm busy reworking the geek side of this forum... but can we have peace in the Instincto section please?
What Iguana says goes for the Instincto section as he is the moderator and top expert of Instincto.
Instincto criticisms should go elsewhere. Most of the replies are now OFF-TOPIC.
-
Hey Good Samaritan. I can understand not wanting to read the posts. Just to let you know most of what KD is saying and what is being discussed really has nothing to do with Instincto itself.
The synopsis is that generalizations regarding whether a particular diet is "good" or "bad" and what verifications to be able to claim that are necessary is being discussed.
At least that's the part of the discussion that I find interesting.
-
Ok GS, I did split the topic and renamed it.
Simple quesitons to answer:
mostly yes or no
(...)
---
Look forward to your comments
Yeah, that's a whole lot of intricate questions that would require a lot of time to answer (especially since my mother tongue is not English and since I type with 2 fingers only - unlike you with your 20 fingers ;D) while you just ignored both of my very basic questions:
- Did you read GCB's book? (just to get an idea of what you're talking about) http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html)
- What's the point for me to answer if you consider me as a liar and dishonest person?
-
how is it NOT relavent to instincto to ask basic assessments of how that diet creates health? To expect actual results and not 'reasons' as to why it is good and other things are bad?
look at this new thread? ridiculous
People other then me just don't care enough to comment. there is litteraly no one who can read the non censored content of all these posts and agree that there isn't massive cover ups of truth or disregard for all kinds of criticisms. If the criticsms are just in every new-member thread or specifc b-12/liver flushing topic then they get lost.
---
I read from the book.
the answers like I said were mostly yes or no - doesn't exactly require trust on my part...feel free to answer them dishonestly..it would be nice enough just to have a record of them being answered so people can refer every time you make a comment about what is right or wrong.
Simply don't write your comments about what is wrong with other diets untill you post evidence that your diet creates health for everyone who has practiced it..and this will remove alot of drama from the instincto forum
-
Simply don't write your comments about what is wrong with other diets untill you post evidence that your diet creates health for everyone who has practiced it..and this will remove alot of drama from the instincto forum
Here is how I use Instincto for sick people:
- I take them to the wet market and other markets, they see, smell and taste a plethora of choices... and I let them choose what best appeals to them and makes them smile.
My pneumona patient chose the atis fruit.
My son lately chose raw squid.
I would provide the patient with lots of food stuffs so that he may be guided by whatever instinct is left in him. I put up a schedule of things to eat and guide, but I also listen to what the patient wants. All people are different, as a healer, it is important to listen to what appeals to the patient.
-
I read from the book.
Then obviously not the whole book. You would have found in it most of the answers you want. More answers are available here: http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html)
OK, it’s in French, but Google Translate does an amazing job.
the answers like I said were mostly yes or no - doesn't exactly require trust on my part...feel free to answer them dishonestly..it would be nice enough just to have a record of them being answered so people can refer every time you make a comment about what is right or wrong.
- Just carefully reading your questions (and moreover all your posts in this thread) would require a lot of time, but nevertheless I would do it ASAP if you were not irrespectful.
- I’m not here to judge what’s right and what’s wrong.
Simply don't write your comments about what is wrong with other diets untill you post evidence that your diet creates health for everyone who has practiced it..and this will remove alot of drama from the instincto forum
- Instincto is not a diet in the sense of other dietary rules given by some gurus.
- It does NOT «creates health for everyone who has practiced it”(sic!). It’s not miraculous.
From now on, I won’t answer till I finish an urgent work I have to complete before the end of this month. This thread has already taken too much of my time.
-
Here is how I use Instincto for sick people:
- I take them to the wet market and other markets, they see, smell and taste a plethora of choices... and I let them choose what best appeals to them and makes them smile.
My pneumona patient chose the atis fruit.
My son lately chose raw squid.
I would provide the patient with lots of food stuffs so that he may be guided by whatever instinct is left in him. I put up a schedule of things to eat and guide, but I also listen to what the patient wants. All people are different, as a healer, it is important to listen to what appeals to the patient.
yeah but for the most part your whole program is about cures, probiotics, ditetary restraints (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/health/distended-colon-(newbie)/msg76587/#msg76587 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/health/distended-colon-(newbie)/msg76587/#msg76587)) and other practices that are completly nullified by instincto theories.
even with a pick and choose model which I agree with, you can have whatever respect for instinctos as people to learn from, but you have to admit it is NOT OK for people to make unproovable claims and nullify those therapies and cures of which you are invested..merely by saying they are OK (by their definition) without them
-
- I’m not here to judge what’s right and what’s wrong.
- Instincto is not a diet in the sense of other dietary rules given by some gurus.
- It does NOT «creates health for everyone who has practiced it”(sic!). It’s not miraculous.
From now on, I won’t answer till I finish an urgent work I have to complete before the end of this month. This thread has already taken too much of my time.
well seeing since my time is clearly less valuable..how many posts would you say that you claim something is wrong? I'll simply quote all of them in my wild crusade thread. You choose the easiest way out all the time. Of course nothing is 100% no one knows 100% and no diet is unfalliable. SO why did you actually say as quoted earlier that if someone just practiced instincto they would be alright!!??..and that whatever the subect at hand was unimportant to target any other way? Why would you say this absolutist statement unless you had total hubris and confidence that instincto was better than any possible other consideration in that instance? Are you willing to take responsibility if one started to go on that approach and got ill for not regarding that issue?
-
Then obviously not the whole book. You would have found in it most of the answers you want. More answers are available here: http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html)
OK, it’s in French, but Google Translate does an amazing job.
Simple quesitons to answer:
mostly yes or no
you certainly have the expertise to answer almost all of them off the top of your head in 5 minutes.
Was it ok to use the phrase 'perfectly proven' that an entire way of thinking is healthy considering you were referring to two people with seemingly no real life assessment or any real comparison standards or to others who have competing health ideas? [ not in GCB's book]
I had asked: What actual evidence is being put forward here as proof?...
and you said none.
Do you agree that without additional evidence this is no more usefull to members than that of raw vegans or cooked foooders with such longevity when it comes to which specific diet to choose on RPF or elsewhere? [ not in GCB's book]
Will you retract the original comment and admit you have not proven anything other raw animal food diets have not without proper evidence? [ not in GCB's book]
Will you or others provide blood work, specific photos as requested etc..? (with the expectation that people can't make 100% solid judgements on these) [ not in GCB's book]
Do you think if you see qualities in others that you believe are bad that you can trace it back to your thoughts about their diet? Is it understandable for people to question the diet of instinctos if they suspect their health doesn't match up with the healthiest possible human diet or even just other people trying other things? [ not in GCB's book]
You cite experiments of instinctos on humans and mice, how specifically do these experiements differ from those of Cordain, the Medical prfession, raw vegans or any others undertaken since the history of science? Havn't these produced drastically different conclusions? Are these instincto conclusions now half a decade old absolutely unquestionable with endless research following? What if people have proven these experiments wrong (on animals or humans) since? [ can't be contained within one book in the past]
Is it possible these experiments do not lead to finding the idea human diet or that other current methods might estimate a better diet? [ not acknowledged other than obvious theorical in GCB's book]
How many of these original experimenters or instincto dieters continued with the diet? How many went on to to other raw food diets? Other diets? [ not in GCB's book, 2011 stats]
Other than social obligations, why would someone go off an instincto diet? [ sorta touched on I guess? in GCB's book]
Is it at all possible that some people did not thrive on an instincto diet? [ sorta touched on I guess? in GCB's book. Im looking for something up to date/personal opinion]
If these ideas are not unquestionable and you are presenting a theory, is it OK to tell people that what they are doing is "wrong" (see quotes in thread - or many other statements) and to give the kinds of 'advice' you give on a regular basis? [ not in GCB's book]
Particulary without above 'proof' shouldn't one be required to imply opinion based on a single theory when its not actually based on experience with a particular thing at hand (or uses other 'present company' member's 'statistics' or other statistics that people actually have some access to) ? [ not in GCB's book]
And slightly more complicated: What specific criteria do you use to measure your health? To criticize others as unhealthy? Do you suspect that after 25 years of health experimentation that your health has thrived more than anyone else on any other approach? [ not in GCB's book]
---
Look forward to your comments
-
I would like to make an observation. Reading and writing English as a second language is very difficult. If I had to make the subtle distinction verbally in Spanish between "perhaps you might consider this diet as a possible way to address your issues" and "this will help you" without sounding like I was telling someone that what I am saying is best or better - I'm not sure I would be able to pull that off.
It is also extremely difficult to read long passages when English is not your first language and to respond to them. It can take a hundred times longer for Iguana to read the same thing as you KD and still have much less understanding and typing with two fingers seems unimaginable!
So maybe what we need to do is ask very simply once and for all what it is Iguana really means in his native tongue and his translation and let the past rest.
Iguana, it seems to me that the basic question is: Do you think that Instincto excludes any prepared foods of any kind and supplements and excluding them is what is the best for everyone in every situation at all times? Do you feel that other ways of eating are wrong? If you do, then would you be so kind as to explain to us why?
I'm interested in your answer because what I have read about Instincto fascinates me and yet I am often drawn to making and eating ferments and using different prepared herbs. They smell, taste and feel just right but would not be found in nature.
Thank you Iguana for answering this question whenever you get to it and thank you both Iguana and KD for taking the time to discuss this.
-
I have the blood work and physical vitality to prove that what I am doing is healthy. The results have been too drastic for me to deny. But I am not sure if other people without the right dedication , resources and physiology would be able to follow my type of diet, without cheating.
I know that there must be others who could thrive off of my diet, but its impossible to know who would be most likly to thrive on any particular diet, based on such limited information as one post on the forum.
Many people who attempt the paleo diet seem to not always follow the right protocols when attempting to adapt to one extreme type of the diet or another. They will cheat, buy sub quality meats, and not obtain the right balance of paleo foods (God knows what else) without letting it be known to the forum. So it would be impossible to advise such people to adopt an extreme raw low carb diet to those who have not the wherewithal nor dedication to stick to the basic protocols.
The results are what matter to me, and I follow my own path based on what my intuition tells me is most optimal.
-
Sabertooth - Do you consider yourself to be Instincto? I also follow my intuition and senses so I was imagining that I might fit into Instincto. Are you low carb Sabertooth and did you follow a strict protocol or your instincts or both to gain your health? I guess I'm having a bit of trouble of putting it together in my mind how both of those go together for you. Would you please explain that some more? Thanks.
-
I would like to make an observation. Reading and writing English as a second language is very difficult. If I had to make the subtle distinction verbally in Spanish between "perhaps you might consider this diet as a possible way to address your issues" and "this will help you" without sounding like I was telling someone that what I am saying is best or better - I'm not sure I would be able to pull that off.
Both Iguanna and GCB have an incredbile grasp of the english language. Just the few surrounding posts of the links I most recently provided make that clear enough.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/re-fat-suettallow-and-butter's-place-in-instincto/msg77332/#msg77332 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/re-fat-suettallow-and-butter's-place-in-instincto/msg77332/#msg77332)
As one can see its not just me but other members who can write comments that go in and out of understanding independent of their complexity but corresponding more with their talking points. You can also see lengthy replies in complex english , vocabulary and sentence structure with equally complex "it may be or it may not be" kind of responses given frequently. This would seem to take even more time to write than yes or no.
I write some run on sentences..but in every case I could make an argument that things are not answered because they are either 'too disrespectful' or just plain accurate as i'm always willing to rephrase and have done so..but it seems to still never meet requirements or still be be too much or too complicated.
Above virtually none of the questions I asked could at all be wrriten in a book that created instincto ideas. The very idea of this dealing with contemporary people makes no sense!, yet was actually claimed right above that these were somehow redundant?! to shuffle aroud how inconsiderate or uneducated I am about asking whether people actually are healthy or not.
Obviously the quesitons all have to deal with that. If peoples health have actually increased in the real world because of those ideas..not whether there are MORE explanaitons of how things SHOULD be in a book of which we are already privy to ad nauseum.
What they are refering to as past annoying debates or criticisms are just actual conversations such as this where a "nothing to see here" mentality sweeeps over the thread..and then its business as usual with people (now down to one person - with 0 official converts in 2 years) citing inctincto ideas as facts in other forums. As mentioned by me and many other members..there an extreme bias about which topics on RPF have a no touch policy and which others can be ripped to shreds with just a cursory idea of someones opinion of natural, no matter how unnatural the other thing actually is. These hypocrisies express with no qualms whatsoever what I have shown numerous times: that it is OK to suggest people are wrong in every single thing one disucess on this forum..and they should just eat instincto, and accept that all such peoples have gained the absolute best health they could have received given other choices.
-
The history is a bit long winded , but basically I came to this diet geared toward the AV protocol of raw meat, dairy, avocados, green drinks, high meat, eggs.
After a short time I noticed by body telling me things(call it instinct)
The taste of meats became more pronounced and I began to get real picky about quality.
I noticed that dairy would make me bloated and sluggish, too much fruit would make me feel bad, and those green drinks seemed a little noxious.
So I stream lined my diet and tailored it to my newly enhanced sense of taste. I also used the advice from others on this forum to do a little experimenting. I have currently settled into a low carb diet that's main staple is whole pasture raised lamb. My instinct is still very active in controlling my dietary behavior and I will use it to regulate the amount of aged meats I will consume, as well as how often I will eat foods like tomatoes, organ meats, marrow etc.
-
I would like to make an observation. Reading and writing English as a second language is very difficult. If I had to make the subtle distinction verbally in Spanish between "perhaps you might consider this diet as a possible way to address your issues" and "this will help you" without sounding like I was telling someone that what I am saying is best or better - I'm not sure I would be able to pull that off.
It is also extremely difficult to read long passages when English is not your first language and to respond to them. It can take a hundred times longer for Iguana to read the same thing as you KD and still have much less understanding and typing with two fingers seems unimaginable!
Thank you Dorothy, I’m relieved that you understand that. Althought I usually don’t need so long to read and understand English texts, I must say that a have a problem with KD’s writing style. I didn’t want to answer anymore here for a while, but since you ask kindly, I feel that I have to.
Iguana, it seems to me that the basic question is: Do you think that Instincto excludes any prepared foods of any kind and supplements and excluding them is what is the best for everyone in every situation at all times?
In practice it depends what we mean by “prepared foods”. Moreover, some specific situations may require food processing, for example grinding if the person became unable to chew by accident or other circumstances. Other therapies are absolutely compatible with instinctive nutrition and in some cases supplements and medicine can be useful or even necessary. I don’t know were from KD got the idea that the whole theory is dogmatic and rigid.
Do you feel that other ways of eating are wrong? If you do, then would you be so kind as to explain to us why?
What is wrong and what is right? Relative to which standard? It’s not because special and general relativity are more accurate than Newton’s physic that the later is wrong in every field. It’s right enough to built a house or drive a truck, you don’t need special relativity for that.
I emphasize that the whole instincto theory and practice is to be considered as a query and an experiment, not at all as the ultimate truth.
I'm interested in your answer because what I have read about Instincto fascinates me and yet I am often drawn to making and eating ferments and using different prepared herbs. They smell, taste and feel just right but would not be found in nature.
Fermenting often happen in nature and sometimes fermented food smells and tastes good.
Sorry if I don’t reply anymore for some time, I have to concentrate my mind on my work!
-
When I read this thread, the one thing that strikes me is that the word "instincto" is being used in two ways: as a shortened version of GCB's term instinctotherapie (the French word), and also as a substitute for the English word instinct. I do not think the word "instincto" should serve this dual purpose, because using it this way causes ambiguity.
GCB's anopsology/"instincto" is not merely an intuitive/instinctive way of eating. I would suggest that here, in our rawpaleodietforum, we agree to use the term "instincto" to refer to GCB's anopsology. Other words, such as instinct and instinctive, are better suited to their standard English meanings.
-
The linguistic ambiguity isn't lost on me. I have read the anopsology and agree with much of it.
I am critical of many of the practices espoused in the book, mainly the practice of eating vegetables in general. Its a prejudice on my part,. Early into this diet I gave up on attempting to taste and discern the goodness of certain foods. It seems that the instintos were to much into raw vegetables, which I couldn't stomach so drifted away from studying thier diet in too much detail.
I instinctively chose to differ from the insticto, but I am no way excluding the basic premise of GCBs message of developing ,following, and trusting in ones instinct.
-
GCB's anopsology/"instincto" is not merely an intuitive/instinctive way of eating. I would suggest that here, in our rawpaleodietforum, we agree to use the term "instincto" to refer to GCB's anopsology. Other words, such as instinct and instinctive, are better suited to their standard English meanings.
Right..obviously sabertooth's diet is not considered to be instincto and would have never discovered such conclusions (right or wrong) following the advice of instincto (idea, protocol) instead of instincts, intuition and results. Artifically denying 'foodstuffs'and such not based on pleasure but how one feels is even not inctincto unless they are following it 'correctly' and don't have things that supposedly block it from manifesting. Instincto has little to do with how ones feels or intuits because of their current choices..but only after ascibing to ideas of what is "good" can one have acess to those pure instincts to discover how much or what is healthy. If one thinks this is inaccurate I could always dredge up more posts saying exactly such.
I don’t know were from KD got the idea that the whole theory is dogmatic and rigid.
What is wrong and what is right? Relative to which standard? It’s not because special and general relativity are more accurate than Newton’s physic that the later is wrong in every field. It’s right enough to built a house or drive a truck, you don’t need special relativity for that.
the response to dorothy is such obvious political sidesteping to soften what is so transparent and out of step with the message delivered in almost all of your posts.
These are so easily available and were right in this thread (and elsewhere with the phrase "this is wrong") and yet there is still denying or wordplay about basic things. Clintonesq
Is it right or possibly healthy to eat 100% the opposite of how you eat if it works like in your truck? or not? simple..
. Of course nothing is 100% no one knows 100% and no diet is unfalliable. SO why did you actually say as quoted earlier that if someone just practiced instincto they would be alright!!??..and that whatever the subect at hand was unimportant to target any other way? Why would you say this absolutist statement unless you had total hubris and confidence that instincto was better than any possible other consideration in that instance? Are you willing to take responsibility if one started to go on that approach and got ill for not regarding that issue?
yet taking minutes to address whether this is contradictory to what you just said..or acceptable forum language at all. is just too complicated and requires too much time. If you ever stopped to address things they would not have to get pushed back and rephrased 8 different ways through a complicated disucssion..it would waste less of my time as well as yours. Of course making the real admissions and actually exposing facts and things of interest about the health of instincto followers is not your goal.
I guarantee there will be more this. "what? me? I never do such things" and smiley welcoming new members and such before its the same dogmatism. I've said this same sentence like 4 times.
-
Eveheart - yes, instinct and instincto - two different things and yet there is some overlap and that's why the name. What are instincts but often highly tuned senses right? Very good to make the distinction - useful to keep in mind. Thanks.
Sabertooth - sounds like you come to things similarly to me except some individual differences like my body tends to like greens and vegetables so instincto is a bit more of a fit for me in that way I guess. Thank you very much for expounding.
KD - It's tough aint it this forum stuff? You're working so hard to make a general valid point regarding claims. At least for me it is not missed. I really admire your integrity and stamina.
And Iguana - I can't thank you enough for taking the time to answer my questions. I believe that I understand. My interpretation of what you are saying is something like .... instincto is the way that you have found to make the truck run correctly but that doesn't mean you understand everything or that there might not be other variables or sciences. Is that a correct interpretation? Just because you are working off of the premises of Instincto and holding them to be true, does not mean that you can't still recognize other advancements, discoveries and differing ways that others might get good results from. But if you are going to give advice - it will be from what you have experience with. You found a way that has had results for you and others and that you find to be logical so you are taking it as a general working principle - not necessarily as absolute. Is that a good interpretation?
You are also right that ferments do happen in nature. Teas would happen too - but not tinctures. But it sounds like there is openness - which does my heart good.
Would you help me, when you have time, with other examples than yourself and what the general experience is (if there is one). Maybe point me to some basic documents written first in English if they exist? I find google interpretations difficult to read. I understand that the sampling must be extremely small. Any information which KD finds helpful I also would like pictures, diagnostic testing etc. if it exists. I came to raw foods when there were almost no examples so I am used to such things. I've had to use my own logical mind and my own body knowledge because there were no gurus back then to speak of - so thankfully I missed a lot of the dogma traps that people have today. It was not a complete knowledge but it was the best working hypothesis I had at the time and has served me well as a base that I am expanding upon. I'm here to learn.
Again - thank you all.
-
KD - It's tough aint it this forum stuff? You're working so hard to make a general valid point regarding claims. At least for me it is not missed. I really admire your integrity and stamina.
heh, well I'd like to actualy accomplish something, for once..and it seemed to be getting there for a second...
I'll take whatever responsibility for threads de-materializing into feuds and so many accusations to even keep track. These of course will not be answered, but possibly cause some folks to think.
The root however is something which anyone can certainly address..but probably won't. That is - assuming something works because people like an idea rather than that thing manifesting actual results in the real world, results that go beyond other approaches - worthy of trumping them so in 'arguments' on a forum.
If we are to put things on a pedestal merely for sticking it out with programs, at the very least don't we need to analyze how many people have stuck with such programs? (in this case its not many- very low, particulary with the more pleasure/ease/no 'diet' - claims) as well as actually comparing how those people have fared in comparison to other health approaches - particularly those cited as bad? If not, can't we just cite Aajonus, de Vany etc.....or even people who bring no consciousness to their health at all to prove claims about any number of things?
Isn't this especially the point of THIS forum not mired by holy ideas like vegetarianism or the claims of other gurus like AV and others present information? Equally importantly do we give credence to ideas that seem accurate to how we understand nature and 'paleo-man' without actually examining results of modern people trying to gain health, or taking into account how accurately these approaches actually mirror the choices and availability of paleo people? (if one cares about such things) . In a hyperbolic example I would hope to think that no one here believes a diet of belladonna, cranberries, brussel sprouts and fish from a farm inside an old oil tank represents a diet that is either paleo or healthy. Mostly how this forum can function it seems is to address how a person can choose the healthiest foods and groupings of foods without assuming everything and every quantity of paleo and/or raw food is good for them.
The larger issue is this is not the first thread that states (quite non-ironically) long term instinctos prove the validity of their diet OR the 'raw paleo diet' OR even that its a more suitable diet than other RAF or RVAF diets practiced here. Where is the evidence for this other than such a small sampling that isn't even providing basic evidence of health? Are we actually saying we can't find examples of way longer term peoples on other diets? Also diets that members have had had their own experience with and failed and can cite differences?
Everyone should be aware that on other 'parallel universe' forums people like raw fruitarians, raw sproutarians, cooked paleos dieters and cooked zero-carb dieters will make their own claims, cite their own evidence. On this forum there is no other diet that is given 'carte blanch' treatment as examples of healthy eaters. The very idea that instincto lines up more with a 'raw paleo' concept is totally an unacceptable way to validate what some seem as outrageous claims and poor results per grandiose proselytizing.
If people are to be given AUTHORITY based on their experience...and not only to cite what works for them...to cite what the diet of humanity is, the diet that works to cure all disease and to nitpick every thead about what other things are unnecessary (it has been stated for instance that for the record that paleo man didn't 'worry' or know about LC or ZC etc..so these things are obviously unnecessary or harmful)
Its even had to be pointed out by other moderators towards instinctos that there are many RAF approaches on this site even despite the raw paleo umbrella.
---
To me, the point of a forum is actually being able to discuss things without dogma and blanket advice of authorities about what is good or bad
and to show though peoples experiments, changes undergone, and documentation what is actually working despite what those authorities or books have to say.
---
thats what I got folks...
-
I am not convinced that anopsology is an ideology. When I read GCB, I hear a highly plausible explanation of how our paleolithic fore bearers (and some current-day hunter-gatherers) select and prepare their foods. GCB explains in terms understandable by modern man. In my own words: first, they smelled, then, they tasted. Next they chose to spit out or swallow and grab some more. They never thought, "Hmmmm, wonder how this would taste blended with pineapple in my Vitamix?"
-
I am not convinced that anopsology is an ideology. When I read GCB, I hear a highly plausible explanation of how our paleolithic fore bearers (and some current-day hunter-gatherers) select and prepare their foods. GCB explains in terms understandable by modern man. In my own words: first, they smelled, then, they tasted. Next they chose to spit out or swallow and grab some more. They never thought, "Hmmmm, wonder how this would taste blended with pineapple in my Vitamix?"
Theres a part of my argument that applies not just to Instincto, but to this very logic you seem to be implying which is that what our ancestors did proves anything about what is healthy for modern people. If (in practice) people could prove to live their whole life vitamixing all their food, eating cooked and other harmful food or 'neolithic' food and still have better results than following ideas (easy example, avoiding cooked food, and other 'harmful neolithic food' but being vegan) , ideas which will always be arguable about our ancestors, why would it matter?
Why is this ever a reason why people can make claims that others shouldn't eat vitamixed food (not that I do) or any other 'paleo' or 'non-paleo' thing if it is completely divorced of results, reality, or ignores other things that truly matter?
People have to point to contemporary evidence, not just ancient people whos health was determined by all kinds of factors to say that these (x) things are important and others not. its the same thing as citing HGs which is considered unacceptable here...for some good reason as their health can't prove that every aspect of what they did is right or can be replicated in modern environments with modern variations of those foods. These things only suggest that certain circumstances allowed it to me so, and NOT which individual factors are most important. It also says nothing about buffering modern problems though methods these people clearly DID NOT NEED.
Even a true replications of ancestral diets (if these were ever known) should not have that carte blanche to automatically trump other approaches on a discussion forum. Making comments about using what 'paleo man' did :determining if they ate a certain way, processed a certain thing, used a certain 'medicine or therapy' is wrong when delivered dogmatically and one of many criticisms I am talking about. Its fairly naive, and ignorant and disproven in so many instances . Making this statement to determine anything other than examining how a practice MIGHT not work and that accepting the "ways of nature" (picked and chosen) trump all, of course is in fact a ideology or dogma of sorts, often referred to as Natural Hygiene and others which remain poorly proven hypothesis.
-
Theres a part of my argument that applies not just to Insctino, but to this very logic you seem to be implying which is that what our ancestors did proves anything about what is healthy for modern people....
Why is this ever a reason why people can make claims that others shouldn't eat vitamixed food (not that I do) or any other 'paleo' or 'non-paleo' thing if it is completely divorced of results, reality, or ignores other things that truly matter?
People have to point to contemporary evidence, not just ancient people whos health was determined by all kinds of factors to say that these (x) things are important and others not.
There are varying degrees of this need to prove things with scientifically sound evidence. For example, I have nearly no need to point to contemporary evidence. Your need, as you stated, is much higher.
This reminds me of a mathematics professor who asked his class, "What form of proof would you employ to show that 1+1=2?" After the brightest minds in this class offered their proofs, the professor trumped all the answers by pointing out, "Everybody knows that 1+1=2... why would you need to prove it?"
-
There are varying degrees of this need to prove things with scientifically sound evidence. For example, I have nearly no need to point to contemporary evidence. Your need, as you stated, is much higher.
This reminds me of a mathematics professor who asked his class, "What form of proof would you employ to show that 1+1=2?" After the brightest minds in this class offered their proofs, the professor trumped all the answers by pointing out, "Everybody knows that 1+1=2... why would you need to prove it?"
this is so innacurate.
So what you are saying now is if it was true that there was almost unanimous poor results coming out of such theories it wouldn't matter. That all of such were shots-in-the dark -not based on real results- these would still apply to ALL peoples situations based on an IDEA of nature? That meanwhile if records became available of other criticized things either having no consequence or people thriving based on opposing ideas..
You would stick with what someone else has explained to you or what makes sense as a 20-21st century person about a 20th century construct? this isn't dogma?
the idea is basic. According to almost all camps there are 'toxins' and degenerations created by countless generations of eating poorly. Forgetting about all the other countless criticisms and problems of the ideology I am claiming above, merely saying that eating the way our ancestors ate will automatically correct such things is a dogma and has led to poor health in countless people being led by gurus and ideas of what that natural diet is. There is no way to argue this.
-
I'm certain that I do not understand exactly what you meant by what you wrote, but I believe that dogma refers to beliefs demanded by an authority. GCB has no authority; he's just a guy (pun intended) who wrote stuff that makes some sense to some people.
-
I had edited my posts. perhaps it makes more sense now..
If not I don't think you understand the ramifications, and the kinds of of problems people can run into when they expect someones idea of a healthy diet (even if it is sorta close to how we are meant to eat) will automatically clear out or resolve problems. That there is potential even then to make people more sick than even standard diets regardless to how close to nature they think they are behaving. (although in reality many people skip many aspects of a natural lifestyle that can be as important as diet). Also importantly, that sometimes people need solutions (even drastic ones) that don't present themselves as necessary or available in nature and thus don't have the kind of precedent. Believing otherwise is an ideology whether it comes from a guru or is intuited and invented by an individual themselves.
simply put, dogma is when beliefs contrast reality but are still insisted upon as reality. Like when you or others assert that since a cave-person didn't do x than its automatically wrong..divorced of contemporary experiences.
-
Also to not get confused (and before the crucifixion starts) ...
There IS a difference between trailblazing (what many of us are forced to do) without needing assuredness or 'science' per se (of which I agree), and actual evidence showing something isn't what it seems (if this is the case).
The issue that is shocking to me is that people are so unmoveable about ideas that might not even matter to the large portion of people (grinding food?) and then presenting some larger components of diet as more effective regardless of comparisons of the other entire approaches.
If a little food or processing not accessed by people thousands of years ago makes something unnecessary or bad, not only does this rule out most of what people are actually eating it still needs to be shown that this is indeed important in comparison to these large ideas/macronutrient ratios etc... Of course people will admit this and draw lines of common sense (what is clearly not 'paleo' to say a brussel sprout or orange) but still say such things are more detrimental than even larger differences in diets. THAT is what needs to be proven..not everyone needing to be a proven superwoman, as I already I said...
even if one doesn't ascribe to this idea that health problems MAY require more than a (suggested) natural diet, one can easily just criticize how eating foods that are 'paleo' (exempting non paleo food) may not always match up with eating to what our true requirements are. And of course that people not in line with any of those theories might be the ones with the best health successes.
I've tried to leave out most of the criticism I've already made in the past about the actual practice of such and talk about the immoral preachyness, but the reason I believe this practice doesn't work (among other things) is artificial availability and activity, inevitable mental/emotional intrusion, or cravings/desires due actually to internal problems and imbalances and not true desires of our ancestors .
So if it turns out to be true that people in the present aren't testing their body to hold up in certain basic measurable assessments or natural conditions, and that they can not even do so (even in comparison to cooked food dieters, particularly ones that can live in the wild and not die) obviously this is a problem.
The reasons for this dilemma is IMO is neglecting many toolsets ( as I implied ) due to dogma AND that certain claims and diets end up being MORE artificial (potentially problematic) than whatever is being proposed as artificial and harmful.
Here is an old example..
- Lets say someone follows a bear for one year (heavy in meat OR vegetation, whichever) Keeping in mind a bear (unlike a monkey) spends only 50% of time and energy being active and 50% of that (or 25%) is foraging. also compared to some people who spend close to 0%
-After working out those quantities and types of things. (say it was just honey, berries and fish: for simplicity) work out some system to provide an abundance of amount of that fresh food of which it eats and put it in buckets. Then put the bear in a confined area for one year (not exercising or needing to exert energy to acquire food) with total access to as much of each food as possible.
would anyone expect this to have great results in health? accurate to how it ate in the wild, no matter how pure its instincts were? How about a circus bear raised on cooked food their entire life? would either even follow the path of nature's challenges and limited and changing availability?
For kicks one could just look to a even a zoo (where activity is also limited, but diet chosen of adequate but crappy quality foods) or just view in the wild all kinds of cooked garbage such as US camp grounds. Contrast and compare how much were detrimental in comparison to being confined and having free reign on desire. Then add thousands of years of civilizations degeneration and a raging fungal infection...
---
anyway my weekend starts on Sun..so time to engage in all kinds of neolithic activity...
-
Simple quesitons to answer:
mostly yes or no
you certainly have the expertise to answer almost all of them off the top of your head in 5 minutes.
Was it ok to use the phrase 'perfectly proven' that an entire way of thinking is healthy (…)
Hugh… Yes or no questions, ah ha…! "an entire way of thinking is healthy" What’s that ?
considering you were referring to two people with seemingly no real life assessment or any real comparison standards or to others who have competing health ideas?
I had asked: What actual evidence is being put forward here as proof?...
and you said none.
I said none because I can’t prove anything to you since you wrote me:
you are indeed a liar, sorry. you said specifcally you didn't make comments on things you wern't aware about and only said dairy was neolithc and have said much more..way more often (likeing dairy to steroids perhap?) than i'd like to hunt down and piece together and get called out for attacking you further. I have you quoted as saying why drink water..all the animals do it..like the form of every one of your judgemweental and igrorant (from my persepctive) posts. leave me alone now.
So, I should not even reply to you in order to leave you alone. But as have a bit of free time now, I’ll try to answer, not for you, but for the others who might be sincerely interested.
Do you agree that without additional evidence this is no more usefull to members than that of raw vegans or cooked foooders with such longevity when it comes to which specific diet to choose on RPF or elsewhere?
Some evidence is there: http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html (http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/instinctomag.html) and some more here: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/bruno-comby%27s-report-on-hiv/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/bruno-comby%27s-report-on-hiv/)
We don’t have to choose any specific diet. Instinctive nutrition is in no way a specific diet.
Will you retract the original comment and admit you have not proven anything other raw animal food diets have not without proper evidence?
I haven’t proven anything myself.
Will you or others provide blood work, specific photos as requested etc..? (with the expectation that people can't make 100% solid judgements on these)
I have no blood work to provide since I only go for a check up every 4 years as requested by the state to keep my heavy trucks driving license. As I’m fine, the MD never requested a blood test and I never asked for it as I couldn’t care less. Photos of his “instincto ever since birth” son have been provided by GCB: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/what-do-raw-paleo-children-prefer/msg66466/#msg66466 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/instinctoanopsology/what-do-raw-paleo-children-prefer/msg66466/#msg66466)
I’ve also posted photos of myself: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/post-videos-of-you-eating-raw-meat-with-bare-hands-and-teeth/msg48326/#msg48326 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/post-videos-of-you-eating-raw-meat-with-bare-hands-and-teeth/msg48326/#msg48326)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/post-videos-of-you-eating-raw-meat-with-bare-hands-and-teeth/msg48669/#msg48669 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/post-videos-of-you-eating-raw-meat-with-bare-hands-and-teeth/msg48669/#msg48669) and one of GCB somewhere, I think.
Now I should scan a photo of myself as a kid to show how sickly and week I was then. I would most probably be dead if I hadn’t stopped to eat junk food. Can’t prove it, of course!
Do you think if you see qualities in others that you believe are bad that you can trace it back to your thoughts about their diet? Is it understandable for people to question the diet of instinctos if they suspect their health doesn't match up with the healthiest possible human diet or even just other people trying other things?
I don’t believe others are bad… what the hell are you meaning here?
You cite experiments of instinctos on humans and mice, how specifically do these experiements differ from those of Cordain, the Medical prfession, raw vegans or any others undertaken since the history of science? Havn't these produced drastically different conclusions? Are these instincto conclusions now half a decade old absolutely unquestionable with endless research following? What if people have proven these experiments wrong (on animals or humans) since?
AFAIK nobody has proven these experiments wrong. Of course you can question them and reproduce them. That’s what GCB has been always asking for. That’s what I’ve done: as I doubted, I’ve repeated the experiment with my limited means – that is on myself.
Is it possible these experiments do not lead to finding the idea human diet or that other current methods might estimate a better diet?
Is there a L missing to “idea” and should I read “ideal” instead? If so, I’m not even sure that I correctly understand what you mean. What current methods are you talking about? Moreover, I don’t think that “instinctotherapy” or “anopsology”can be categorized as a specific diet. It is instead opposed to all other specific diets and it just tries to emulate the nutrition of our pre-fire paleo ancestors as much as possible. Of course, there are difficulties in doing so since the environmental and social conditions have changed a lot. Nothing is perfect. We are doing an experiment, there’s no dogma in the way to practice, it’s rather a research.
You once assaulted me because I gave an advise to beginners to eat the meat of a single animal species per meal. Please note that’s in no way a dogma, but just an advice to beginners to avoid a difficult digestion. Once you have practiced for some time, you can do whatever you want, eat for example eggs, mackerel, beef, deer, mutton and oysters at the same meal! I wouldn’t do it, but if you feel like doing so, then you can have a go at it and see what happens.
How many of these original experimenters or instincto dieters continued with the diet? How many went on to to other raw food diets? Other diets?
Who knows? We don’t have a register, people are not requested to report to someone or some organization, neither when they start instinctotherapy nor when they stop. But if your question is about the very first ones, they were four, AFAIK. Out of these four people, one went back to cooked food and is still alive.
Other than social obligations, why would someone go off an instincto diet?
Just like why people go off raw paleo. Just check the names of the posters on this forum 2 or 3 years ago. How many % are still here? Who knows, most may go on eating raw paleo / instincto but are bored of endlessly arguing here.
Is it at all possible that some people did not thrive on an instincto diet?
Sure, when the health damages due to cooked Neolithic food are too bad to be reversible.
If these ideas are not unquestionable and you are presenting a theory, is it OK to tell people that what they are doing is "wrong" (see quotes in thread - or many other statements) and to give the kinds of 'advice' you give on a regular basis?
Advices are just advices, nothing more.
Particulary without above 'proof' shouldn't one be required to imply opinion based on a single theory when its not actually based on experience with a particular thing at hand (or uses other 'present company' member's 'statistics' or other statistics that people actually have some access to) ?
Sorry, I fail to grab the meaning of this and I’m running out of time. I already spent more than 2 hours to write the above and search the references. A little more than the 5 minutes you foolishly talked about…
And slightly more complicated: What specific criteria do you use to measure your health?
Is there an universal criteria to measure someone’s health?
To criticize others as unhealthy?
Did I criticize others as unhealthy??
Do you suspect that after 25 years of health experimentation that your health has thrived more than anyone else on any other approach?
It has thrived more than on my previous cooked and dairy nutrition. But no more than my father who ate junk for his whole life and was still touring mountain passes on his racing bike at 75 years old. Unfortunately he died of cancer at 84 after long and awful sufferings.
-
If it is just another diet..like many paleo diets here it should be treated as such. The problem is that other diets don't make the same outrageous claims that eating for pleasure ALWAYS trumps eating according to 'modern' constructions of diets. Those that you regularly criticize often purely for being 'diets' having restrictions or additions different to what you believe handed down by some ideas. These diets might make other claims seemingly more outrageous to you but you and basically few others sharing your philosophy are the only people making that particular claim. Suggesting a process is so close to nature (and criticizing anything and everything that is outside this definition of 'nature') of course is going to have to be more accountable for showing it has more sucess. Without those claims, no other less natural diets (which is assumed of course) are needing to live up to the same percentages of success as natures perfection. Sounds unfair but isn't as extreme claims need extreme successes or at least consise clear evidences of others' failures, not just citing the same ideological principles which is actually under question about what should be good. It just happens to be ironic that other diets do have more success particulary for healing specific conditions. With just plain unknowns to the less common or relevant: diets useful or sufficient for raising perfectly healthy people from birth in a perfect and wild environment. The idea that people have specifically left instinco to at least try these approaches (if not have more success) which you continually and disingenuously leave out, is also an important issue.
Obviously the reason people go off RPD AND instincto diets would include not having absolutely the best health one would expect. Far more so and before people addressed social or other concerns. No one goes off a diet that makes them feel like the absolute healthiest person that has existed before man mastered fire (when people were truly healthy?)..or whatever opinions you have about the current human race or how harmful cooking is. Its very important with such drastic claims to show how drastically or poorly this type of 'purity' can stack up to people employing the things one is so critical of.
If people have had far more success with other approaches (even after leaving instincto to other approaches) obviously it is false that one can automatically criticize things as harmful just by the very nature of them crossing instincto ideology, which is absolutely the basis of which you criticize things and NOT actual material assessments and measurements. Its OK to not need or agree with these for personal choices, but as with my comments above to the other member the reverse is NOT OK - that is neglecting outright proof (postive in others, negative in oneself) in favor of how things should be.
Having basic evidence of people being alive with no other evidence as I already suggested...this is stuff one would expect on a raw vegan site which can produce equal or greater 'evidence', grasping at straws to show bare minimums and then citing a diet is perfect for all people and all conditions. What you present is still a combination of 'things appear ok' + we have a failproof idea of what is healthy or natural, nothing more. Raw-veganism fits that bill perfectly for many , particularly with anthropology always in dispute.
Overall still the same 'it may be or it may not be', but a sincere thanks for trying I suppose. Basically here is one last question which should infom whether there is an untruth or that you truly don't(??) tell people "this is wrong "or place judgement of one diet (instinctotherapy) over another without comparing objective real life evidence.
How about taking two identical twins at birth. If one ate an instincto diet are you saying that you do think its possible that another that ate an entirely differnt diet (still raw, more or less) could easily have better health? That you are only making a claim that an instincto diet should yield reasonable health for most but possibly not better than diets that have other methods?
I said none because I can’t prove anything to you since you wrote me:
---
You have still provided none (most of this is just avoiding the quesitons asked), since this doesn't include actual documentation like teeth and skin as mentioned are needed. These are easy to take and acquire, particulary if there are plenty of people and such a large percentage succeeding on this approach. Candid photos from the 80's doesn't cut it. Quite simply you quoted a PM from when you harassed me personally after giving up arguing on the forum, I don't see that coming across well. .Also in this thread is a clear "i could have banned you" threat. Isn't a liar simply someone who consistently shares mistruths? and isn't it a mistruth when you claim you do not make comments about what is right or wrong? (even in situations you have 0 experience with) when clearly this makes up most of your posts? These mis-truths include the ones that incited my claim to your email threat. I pointed out that you lied similarly when you were actually saying you haven't criticized people EVER for discussing not drinking water, dairy eating, or a 'ZC' diet or any other thing that goes against instincto in some form. These naysayings are also in totally 'paleo' subjects and diets (those making up the bulk of the forum) to be clear. Still the claim of which I called 'lie' was that - That you claimed there is only ever 'suggesting' or 'pointing out' "which things are neolithic" (this is exact quote). Obviously this is untrue. Since that was brought up its been untrue and even since this new thread has been active this continues.
-
Your post is much too succinct for me to understand. Can you explain us in more length how and why I’m a liar?
-
ok to be more succinct, as predicted you answered few of these as yes or no questions and only then with caveats or tangents. You gave answers that either avoided the question entirety, pulled old information, or just plain defeated the purpose which was to have a conclusive answers showing or absolving how absolutelist or not your stance often comes across. It really should have taken no time, you chose to give answers that were not particularly forthright with materials that had any vulnerability or insight already known.
Hugh… Yes or no questions, ah ha…! "an entire way of thinking is healthy" What’s that ? [a reference to when you told another member that if they practiced an instincto diet they wouldn't have to worry about their current health problem or often any other problem or discussion on this website which are issues of specific diet andhealth choices]
Some evidence is there: [the question was do you agree (yes or no) that other peopel could rationalize approaches just as easily, not: supply some websites here]
I haven’t proven anything myself. [so I guess hanna was right in your speaking irony and that you actually arn't ever putting yourself as example of proveing instincto is suitable for anyone but perhaps yourself]
I have no blood work [ the question was 'will you provide', so I guess no is the answer if I am interpreting correctly]
I don’t believe others are bad… what the hell are you meaning here? [ this again was a yes or no, asking if you think you make judgements of people based on their diet without actually going to material evidence (as I suggest above) and do you think it is ok for people to question the authority of instinctos in other discussions here if they don't believe they offer the solutions they are looking for - obviously this is an easy yes I would think...]
AFAIK nobody has proven these experiments wrong. [This is something which would warrant an entire other argument, but clearly tests are done on wild animals all the time which form other conclusions about their results in formulating ideal proportions etc..]
You once [again a super easy yes or no basically saying whether other diets could succeed if instincto failed - guessing this one is a no on your belief, but it should be a yes]
Who knows? [well you certainly would know more than others and are leaving out info of course]
Just like why people go off raw paleo. here? [I address this above. If the failure rate is at all similar perhaps instincto being a 'non diet' is no better than other 'diets' who you have by default indeed said are bad or dangerous. Diets whos tweaking is the whole point of this forum. A forum where people generally do not to blanketly criticise things or supply solutions that involve pretty much adopting an entire other philosophy to have any sucessful application whatsover]
Sure, when the health damages due to cooked Neolithic food are too bad to be reversible. [ or so a Yes then only with this caveat that it has nothing to do with failings of the diet itself. So you are saying that its still always the best solution one can assume.]
Advices are just advices, nothing more. [ so no that was not ok when you said, sorry you have gone about this wrong etc... and also other things mentioned above]
Sorry, I fail to grab the meaning of this and I’m running out of time. I already spent more than 2 hours to write the above and search the references. A little more than the 5 minutes you foolishly talked about…
[well I've spent 13 minutes writing this (had to leave some typos I assume, sorry) and the whole point of those questions was to not rquire anything but what you already knew off the top of your head. basically it says shouldn't you form things as your opinion and not facts about how x causes disease etc.., ideally another Yes]
Is there an universal criteria to measure someone’s health? [this seems to be unecessary skirting of a simple quesiton anyone can answer of what actual signals motivate them to stick on their diet...ones that go beyond theories or promissess but are experienced everyday and notived by others.]
Did I criticize others as unhealthy??It has thrived more than on my previous cooked and dairy nutrition. But no more than my father who ate junk for his whole life and was still touring mountain passes on his racing bike at 75 years old. Unfortunately he died of cancer at 84 after long and awful sufferings. [pretty consistently even people that supply actual evidence are criticized...]
-
KD - are you a New Yorker? I ask because I seem to understand you and your way like I understood people in my native land.
Here's what I think is being driven at here Iguana if I might try to intervene as an interpreter (to the best of my ability). KD, please tell me if I'm on target or completely off here.
What I am guessing KD wants to hear from you Iguana is a clear statement that Instincto is not proven to be better than any other paleo diet talked about here per se because all you are basing your opinions on are anectdotal experiences. He seems to want an apology for having stated in the past that instincto was necessarily better when it was just your opinion and not based on any tested and re-tested verifiable and necessarily pertainable scientific data.
This really shouldn't be too hard because no diet here is proven scientifically with double blind studies, using twins etc.
In my view, all he is asking for is humility. I haven't been here very long so I do not know all the history and am not familiar with your posts over time, I am just basing my good opinions of you on my experiences and what I have read since being here and it seems to me that since I've been here and all of what you wrote recently was humble and speaks to instincto as being experimental, that your opinions are just that, personal opinions.
All of us here are simply adding our data points because raw diets are not tested - none of them. Paleo is the oldest and the most eaten by the most people over history, but that does not mean it is better for us now in the modern world. That point KD has made many times over and makes a whole lot of sense to me. What we are all trying to figure out is what works in our modern worlds here and now. What you have to offer Iguana, like the rest of us, is your own personal experience with the recognition that it is not necessarily transferable to others - because no one here can claim that.
KD - if Iguana was to make a statement that is clear about his humility, the lack of scientific backing to claims and that his opinions are just opinions just like the rest of us here, would you be able to forgive and move onward? Am I correct that everything pretty much boils down to Iguana stating that he makes no claims? He's just like the rest of us experimenting and reporting his ideas and personal experiences and experiences of other people he knows and concepts that he chooses to adhere to because they are working for him?
It's a tough thing to have really great personal benefits and see others benefit without claiming that your diet is the bomb and great in general because hey - that's human nature. I've noticed that other people do that here too with their forms of paleo diets. They give all sorts of advice from their perspectives with their experience, saying do, this, don't do that etc.
Instincto has it's own little section just like Primal etc. Primal folks give primal advice about dairy in other threads. This place is filled with opinions based on accumulated data and personal experience with little to no verification. Pictures, skin, blood work - nice, but not really much use scientifically without larger samplings. Still, just individual data points.
I know Iguana that KD's style could be a bit tough to follow and pretty intense. It makes me feel at home though. I hope my little input was helpful in making a bridge of understanding.
So - is there hope for this olive branch?
-
What I am guessing KD wants to hear from you Iguana is a clear statement that Instincto is not proven to be better than any other paleo diet talked about here
He seems to want an apology for having stated in the past that instincto was necessarily better when it was just your opinion and not based on any tested and re-tested verifiable and necessarily pertainable scientific data. [i'm sure there is data, just not presently supplied basic data that would be accepted as showing a large percentage of people thriving over other raw or cooked diets. This would be suficient, particularly if it showed having more than adequate vit A,K,D3 BMI etc... as well]
What you have to offer Iguana, like the rest of us, is your own personal experience with the recognition that it is not necessarily transferable to others
Paleo is the oldest and the most eaten by the most people over history, but that does not mean it is better for us now in the modern world.
Am I correct that everything pretty much boils down to Iguana stating that he makes no claims? [no thats just the point I've had to focus on as false as otherwise its even more bickering on how one doesn't gain weight working ones muscles or whatever other thing that cleary is not comming from his expeerience or anyones experience on his or most raw diets - http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/question-on-raw-milk/msg77825/#msg77825 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/primal-diet/question-on-raw-milk/msg77825/#msg77825)]
I think it is more than that, but that above is agreeable enough. The problem is - whatever is said, we will see the same behaviours which start the same old conversations. For the most part no one seems to be convinced by these to actually make any serious changes...but these things are more than just annoying. There are serious reasons that warrent these kinds of arguments like the earliest quote about liver health. This is particularly true to how they eerily mirror vegan Natural Hygiene - putting people off various possible health practices based on bizarre ideas about nature that possibly never needed such. Of course most people here will give statements that come across as factual but I really do not think any other members try to translate their diet as being so absolute in terms of inevitable sucess, none that arn't moderated heavily or banned anyway. Your statement about not being necessarily best to meet the current modern world's issues ('do better with da cooked and neoloithic food??')is certainly my main talking point on this forum, and I suspect won't be agreed upon.
I think for the most part I try to keep my 'lawyering' so specific as to neglect my own personal accusations that would be way worse. :) Perhaps it seems too unecessarily detailed. So scrapping that, basically In addition to what you suggest I would really like anyone to point to how the claims and results [particulary over-emotionality, poor physique, poor teeth, skin, hair, oversensitiveness (physical/moden-world, food) or anger towards the world, as well as automatically labeling anyone who eats differnt as sick despite actual evaluations] differ at all from those claims or experiences of long terms vegans or anyone else that are behind the curtain ideologues. Evidence of course separate than the self-supporting idea of a particular anthopology to butress virtually any result as being automatically positive and a 'natural' development. If people can't point to specifics there, clearly there is less reason to see 'experience' -or holding out- as having any more value than 40 year vegans or cooked fooders or HRM in terms of translatable value at all here for peoples specific health solutions
So - is there hope for this olive branch?
Sure. I think you did a good and fair job.
go mets!
-
I’m fed up about this.
It’s rather me who deserves an apology for being called dishonest and a liar. If I wrote something erroneous (which is entirely possible) or something someone disagrees with, it should be discussed in the original thread quoting what is supposedly mistaken so that everyone knows what we are talking about, not in a thread such as this where everything is mixed in endless lengthy intricate and unreadable diatribes which are obviously the expression of a personal grudge.
This one is now locked.