Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - GCB

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
Nicole would probably have died also without chemotherapy, insofar as she would have continued her regular meat overload. She accepted chemotherapy because her sister is a MD who insisted until Nicole agreed to that.  As everyone is free to act, I did not insist to deter her. It’s probably because her body was under such a big overload of keratins that her lungs were keratinized under the effect of bleomycin at such a speed. The doctors were surprised. Personally I  did not exercise pressure on Nicole to do this or that: I simply advised her to have surgery right away, but she refused by preferring prayers and Hamer’s method. Then I recommended her to drop the meat, or at least to limit it as was done previously (if we had to hunt we wouldn’t have it available every day), but then I stumbled upon an unshakable resistance and it was only 3 weeks before her death that she agreed to avoid meat.

The question of Nicole’s fondness for meat may be related to the lost of her father at 13 years old: he educated her throughout her childhood to force herself to gulp down beefsteaks, which she found awkward, and he constantly brainwashed her that meat consumption would avoid her having "goat legs "— in his own words. There was therefore a strong feeling of her father lost love which she projected on meat, which remained her father’s symbol. It was only at the very end that she took a step back from this belief and ceased her important consumption of red meat. Previously, she thought than meat would help cure her cancer, which easily led to an overload. And as the flavor of domesticated animals’ meat gives only week stop signals, she was able to eat quantities having nothing to do with a proper instinctive balance.

But I believe that the core of the problem is that the total lack of a food class (such as insects) leads the body to more easily accept substitutes. Meat consumed regularly is likely an instinctive workaround for the lack of insects, amplified by the absence of accurate instinctive repulsion with domestic meat. A substitute may well have harmful long-term effects, particularly at immune level, not only at the banal level of balance between the contributions of organs and muscle.

If I try to expand our food range to insects, it shows that I take into account the external environment, and not just the internal signals of the body. Without insects, if they play an important role in our human food range as they do for primates, which is likely, it is not surprising that we automatically tend to compensate with too much meat. Cultural resistance to insect consumption can also distort things. But this does not mean that body signals aren’t critical to achieve adequate nutritional balance.

For my part, I trust most of all the experience : the everyday experience of our alimentary instinct (changes in olfactory, gustatory and proprioceptive variations) and of the extremely precise balancing (proved by the absence of inflammatory and infectious trends) obtained upon training that I’ve always recommended, demonstrate that this instinct works perfectly. Those who claim otherwise are just usually people who have not experienced the instinctotherapy, or have imagined that an optimal alimentary balance would be reached overnight with an insufficient food choice, or without the necessary training. This is the case of Alphagruis, who never followed one of my seminars and even declined to listen to my advices when suffering from certain disorders, which I 'm sure would have quickly resolved with a correct balancing.

I've also always said, which he pretends to be unaware of, that it is necessary to differentiate:

- the case of an emergency therapy, which should act on the short-term and for which it is advantageous to have the widest possible choice in view to find quickly the specific nutrients or herbal therapeutic useful compounds (= instinctotherapy),
- and the long-term practice, where alternating foods avoids saturations and renews both the pleasure and food adequacy (= instinctonutrition).

The practical problem of supply usually tends to solve the issue, except for those who work in an organic fruit and vegetables wholesale store or are willing to spend a lot of money on food...

Now, why didn't I see earlier than meat of vertebrate would be unable to compensate for the absence of insects, which by contrast are present in the daily menus of virtually all primates? This is because the problems appear only on the very long term (10 years, 20 years...). These effects may occur earlier in people with serious diseases, but it is difficult to connect a failure or relapse in connection with the meat matter. It is indeed tempting to think that the case was simply too advanced to allow a natural process to restore normal health, and nothing induces to look any further. Plus, the idea of eating insects or questioning the Goddess Meat triggers a strong resistance.

At best, I can only advise those who have only a few years of experience in a raw paleo diet to take account of comments made by veterans: during 50 years of regular observations, not only on oneself, but on a large number of people, one inevitably acquires more data than in a few years’ application of an ideology on a single person. And for those who still do not understand: the “instincto” is not an ideology, and not even a dietetic. It is basically an experiment to inquire at what extent the human metabolism and the operation of the senses are still suitable for raw unprocessed pre-Neolithic foods or nutrition as practiced by primates, in order to at least partially explain civilization's diseases by specific traditional diet mistakes.

I always presented it as such, and those who claim that I would have made it a panacea, like so many gurus inventors of miraculous fad diets, are either misinformed or dishonest.

Excuse me for no longer contributing to this forum, but my previous interventions here sparked off such a large influx of questions and even hostility that it took me too much time to answer everyone. Sorry about that.


Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: December 25, 2011, 05:15:21 am »

Apropos animals fed heated food. Gcb, I have a question on this subject. Since I have eaten strictly rawfood for more than half a year, I have had strong reactions to any cooked food. Even when I tried to eat cold smoked food several weeks ago, I had the same symptoms that I had after eating cooked food, although much weaker. However, whenever I ate the meat of farmed animals (salmon, pork, prawns) I never had comparable symptoms. I don´t understand that. If the meat of farmed animals contains concentrated toxins including AGEs, why don´t I react to their meat in the same way I used to react to cooked food?

Serious answer to this question may require a decade of research in immunology... The immunological reactions are extremely complex, packed with interactions, cross-reactions, inhibitions, sensitizations, etc.

However, your observation seems surprising. I recently had (accidentally) an experience with a farmed fish: a bar that I was assured it had been caught in the Atlantic. So I thought I was safe (excellent in terms of objectivity!), but next day I noticed effects on my nervous system, which I didn’t initially know how to explain: insomnia, disordered dreams, agitation, myoclonus of the facial muscles (small spasmodic contractions), diminished ability to concentrate and decreased appetite. It took me a while to blame that fish, because I was sure of its source, but further investigation revealed that the fishmonger had thought I was talking about the mackerel which was right next on the stall and is actually fished. I also had some small red spots on the thighs in the following days and some body odor (usually non-existent after a sufficient period of instincto).

So I am surprised that you haven’t noticed any symptoms. However, I did not myself observe any manifestation of immune type (except for small eruptions). There probably was some, but not violent enough to appear clinically. Immune work that can occur in the animals themselves must also be considered, perhaps because the denatured molecules are stored in modified forms. And last, it is possible that after a few months of instincto, you were not yet out of tolerance for the molecules in question. The post-culinary detoxification takes years, about as long as the intoxination lasted, so we need more patience to draw definitive conclusions...

Merry Christmas to all!

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: December 15, 2011, 11:54:08 pm »
To Löwenherz:
I won’t discus any longer about impressions and conjectures. It suffice to look at the actual results of the experiment: I have almost fifty years of experience on my own body, there are many who practice the instincto correctly for twenty, thirty or forty years and have no problems. Cancers appeared in small numbers and have always been linked to excessive consumption of domestic animals’ meat. All instinctos born children are in an excellent state of health and some are now healthy adults. Wait for an equivalent experience duration before judging and we'll see. All the rest is verbiage more or less disguised as scientific beliefs.
To Hanna:
The AGEs are not the devil himself and those produced below 40° C (to which we are genetically adapted because they are common classes of molecules and are present in small amounts only) should be distinguished from those produced by heat, rare in nature and present in very large concentrations in cooked food. The fear of AGEs produced at low temperature originated from the hypothesis that diabetics suffered from autoimmune degenerations because of AGEs that would have been produced in their bodies due to a higher glucose rate, an assumption that proved false once it has been shown that these levels of circulating AGEs correlate to intake of cooked food.

Another concern is that if we put together in the stomach a lot of different products that are never mixed in the nature, we can still certainly get molecular combinations (others than AGEs as well) difficult to treat by our digestive enzymes, especially when under overloaded. But in principle the instinct prevents overloads and minimizes these problems. Enzymes work very fast indeed when there is no overload, and only the instinct is able to indicate the right quantities.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: December 10, 2011, 04:28:40 am »
As I think about it, many instinctos / rawfooders might have damaged their liver with too much sweet, cultivated fruits (too much fructose is not great for our liver at all

Where do these conjectures come from? The instinctos consume significantly less sugar than the average people on common cooked diet. In addition, the sugars they consume are not damaged by heat (no glycation). Furthermore, the instinct ensures extremely precise control, as shown by a variety of criteria. And then they should have the liver in a bad condition??

The reality is that I’ve never heard of any symptoms about liver problems among the still impressive number of people who have practiced instincto long term. If anyone knows such a case I would be happy that he/she reports it: I will immediately take it into account to review the theory (as I always did whenever a contradiction arose and it’s even by this method that I developed the whole theory).

The question is rather to know where this legend saying sweet fruits are necessarily harmful emerged. If there is a problem to solve, I fear it is a psychological matter, not a liver matter...  ;)

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: December 07, 2011, 06:04:42 pm »
To Cherimoya Kid

There could barely be someone more careful about food quality then me! We meticulously eliminated every food that might be affected not only by molecules of the chemical industry, but also by thermally degraded molecules as in commercial animal feed. The presence of abnormal molecules from grain was also strictly prohibited throughout the whole instincto experiment. All our meats were very strictly from exclusively grass fed cattle or from wild game without any access to corn fields nor garbage.

To Goodsamaritan

Nicole had a carcinoma of the uterus at 56 and deceased at 58 years old.

We can obviously search all kinds of possible explanations. Only overlaps with other cancers cases can allow to see what are the most relevant explanations. My wife had been remained very confident in the instincto, to which she added the Hamer method and prayers. By the way, it is for these reasons that she didn’t agree to reduce her high consumption of meat, even though I had seen on myself the occurrence of a tumor after a very carnivorous phase and its disappearance after restoring my balance – thanks to wild game which doesn’t "deceive" the aliesthesic mechanisms, unlike meat from domestic animals.

It was after this tragedy that I could make the connection with a certain number of cancers cases cured by the instincto who relapsed (or developed a new cancer) in "falling" also into meat overload.

Best regards,

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: December 07, 2011, 04:42:57 am »
Please note that I was careful to specify "equal or greater quality." If better than domesticated is available and I can afford it, I assure you that I choose that. I select the best that I can afford of everything when it comes to food, and I use the alliesthetic mechanism to choose the best tasting foods of all that are available and not exorbitantly expensive for me.
That’s fine, Phil!
I haven't the slightest inclination to do that. As I have explained, it is instead my alliesthetic mechanism that urges me to eat the highest quality red meat. You're not suggesting I should ignore that mechanism, are you?
No, I’m not. I was speaking in general, for all the readers and not specifically for you – and this is valid for the whole of my answer.
What is a little while and why do you assume it is a vicious circle?
A few days, perhaps. The vicious circle is what I described so: “If you mentally restrain your choice to red meat, your body will cope with it to find calories and other nutrients, and the taste will remain more or less attractive. That is then the danger, the need of nutrients goes over the immune problems, and you can eat and eat meat as though it were necessary to your organism.” Again, this wasn’t specifically directed to you.

Not even the traditional Inuit, Ache, Masai, Chukchi, Nenets, or Samburu? If so, then you are at odds with Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this. I know that eating a lot of meat is not necessary for many people (the Kitavans spring to mind), but surely you aren't arguing that no one can instinctively eat plentiful quantities of high quality meats?

Of course I’m not!

I wrote “Within the above conditions”. This meant I was referring to what I observed as part of instinctive raw paleo nutrition in my Center, where a lot of different foods were available so that everyone, including sick people, could quickly find the most suitable nutrients for their case and their health recovery.

I wasn’t referring to traditional hunther-gatherers who eat also cooked food, have harsh environmental constraints, a limited food choice and a good health from the start because their group has not been shielded from natural selection as most of us have been since a few generations.

At least it seems to be generally accepted that even the Lakota (Paleophil´s "buffalo people") were originally farmers.

"Before they adopted a nomadic lifestyle, the Lakota grew corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes and other crops. After they acquired horses and gained the ability to travel quickly, they traded buffalo hides and other valuables for corn and other vegetables they needed."
Thanks for that account, Hanna.

Best regards to all of you !

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: December 05, 2011, 11:24:16 pm »
To Paleo Phil

GCB : Thus, it is always a delusion to believe we could apply rules about what and how much would be healthy or unhealthy.
W onderful, that's reassuring. So I don't have to abide by any rule that artificially limits intake of high quality mammal meat or favors fowl over mammal meat of equal or greater quality?
This stands true only with non domesticated animals (as already mentioned several times, instinctive stop is very hazy with beef, mutton, pork…) and furthermore if you have a sufficient choice at your disposal. If you mentally restrain your choice to red meat, your body will cope with it to find calories and other nutrients, and the taste will remain more or less attractive. That is then the danger, the need of nutrients goes over the immune problems, and you can eat and eat meat as though it were necessary to your organism. But in the long run severe problems may arise.
As a matter of fact, meat seems then necessary (and so not repulsive) because you don’t have anything else than meat at your disposal. To find out if you need something else, you must at first have a large choice of products, stop eating meat for a little while and by every meal try all products to see which one will help you to come out of the vicious circle.
You can’t know if you really need great quantities of meat without trying regularly other foodstuffs in sufficient variety. Within the above conditions, I never saw people who still ate instinctively very large quantities of meat for more than some weeks – or a few months in the most extreme cases.

To Inger

But now I eat elk every day, raw without spices. It is my staple food (I do eat fresh wildcaught fish and oysterz etc. for variation - some fruits (Orkos) too at times). I just love the elk - also the organs. Makes me feel so good. I cannot imagine I will never get tired of it. It so belongs to here (Finland).
Elk tastes... hmm. Some says it has a gamey taste but I find it quite mild tasting? Sure it has a stronger taste than Beef. Maybe the taste is a little iron-like? More complex that beef though. Complex and rich.
Exactly so: I noticed, as part of instincto that red meat taste slightly iron-like when we become overloaded with it. When I read you, my first reaction would be that you eat too much meat, perhaps because you force yourself mentally to consume it in priority against other foods. I myself was a victim of this type of bias: knowing by nutritional science that it provides important elements, I had from the beginning (from about 1966) a favorable a priori for meat, so that I regularly forced somewhat the instinctive stops. As I ate mainly beef at the time, whose taste veers only very slightly to stop, I found myself overloaded to the point of a tumor in my left knee (in 1988), which recurred after surgery and then faded spontaneously simply by adjusting the protein intake correctly.

I guess long long ago when no agriculture existed here, that was the staplefood of people living here. Also reindeer. There are no fruits growing, berries yes, but you cannot live from them only. You could get some fish also - except the Sea is quite polluted here because of Russia.
How comes hat tribes living on mostly mammal-meat do not became cancer? As long as they ate it the natural way, not smoked and salted and fried…
Of course there is not much else to eat in these latitudes. But we cannot think like you do, because the human body isn’t genetically adapted to such climates. It is through the fire, hunting and perhaps cooking that our distant ancestors left the tropics to settle in the cold regions. Moreover, data are missing on how their body reacted, what their illnesses, their rates of cancer, their lifespan, etc. were and what exactly they ate. Fortunately you have a more varied diet, but your wording resonates sometimes like the one of people who don’t apply the rules of instinctive regulation.

I just cannot get it out of my head, as I have been thinking exactly the same thoughts as Van. How could the Indians survive on mostly mammals meat?
Beware of claims boasted in lack of any reliable data: AFAIK there have been no studies that determines the amount of meat consumed by the Indians or the quantities of other food they could find, nor their lifespan and diseases. BTW, they were decimated by the smallpox brought by the Europeans. The only thing we can say is that they lived long enough to breed, but here in Europe, with the awful nutrition of the Middle Ages, people could also reproduce - otherwise we would not be here. In lack of sound scientific data, I prefer to trust my own observations.

If your hypothesis is, meat from mammals might give cancer - how do you explain people who healed from cancer eating raw meat from mammals?
Beware of reasoning: I don’t say that meat of mammals always gives cancer! I say that an overload of proteins, especially of mammals, can cause certain cancers in the long run. The cases you're talking about may be about people who ate a lot of cooked meat, cheese etc.. and have dropped below the overload threshold by eating raw meat. We must also see how long these "cures" lasted. In addition, stories of healing make more noise than those of people who die of their cancer as the norm is...

Are you sure you have not mis-impreted the cause of your wife's cancer?

It’s the hypothesis that is the most likely in view of my own case given above and a few others cases.
Maybe it was stress, causing it? Cancer often have also psychological causes.  Was she stressed out, or harmoniously happy? Was your marriage happy and fulfilling for both of you?
I am personally convinced that stress also played a role. My wife very poorly endured a tax adjustment as the French administration is so expert in, something which threatened to totally wreck us. But I don’t think the psychological pressure alone has been enough to disrupt her immune system. The psychological cause does not preclude the physiological cause.

I am sure your wife was eating lot of delicious fruits along with the 200 grams of mammal-meat.. who knows if that was not so good? Too much sugar? From domesticated sources? It would be intresting to know what else your wife ate, in addition to the beef.
She did not eat more fruits and sweet foods than other instinctos, rather less precisely because she compensated for it with meat, always consumed at the beginning of the meal. I have never seen a correlation between large portions of sweet fruit and tumors. But it is true that I have no experience of people eating a lot of meat and nothing else, as when we obey to our instinct it automatically prevents unilateral diets.

The Indians, and every tribe that ate lot of meat also ate wild berries (that are known to have great anticancer properties) as also wild herbs, mushrooms etc. Might be, that these were needed to eliminate the possibly negative consequences of eating that much mammal meat...?
We don’t use such ways of thinking in the instincto context: it’s not the anti-cancer properties of vegetables that prevent cancer, but rather the fact that these plants prevent imbalances that would result from a too one-sided consumption of meat.

I do eat a lot of wild berries and greens (in summer)... it feels just so good to eat them. Like they were needed somehow.
You follow your instinct here and you’re spot-on!

To Goodsamaritan

If wild birds' proteins are remote...
...then wild ocean fish / clams / oysters / shrimp / crab must be remote from us as well?

Indeed, it is probably better to focus in order, on: plant proteins (nuts, lentils, peas...), shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels ...), arthropods (shrimp, crabs, crayfish, insects ... ), wild ocean fish (sardines, mackerel, herring ...), eggs, poultry (goose, duck, chicken... or better: wild birds), and if nothing in the above is satisfying, wild mammal meat. These kind of intellectual preferences seems a priori contrary to a purely instinctive choice but we should take account of the fact that, if we exclude the relatively recently mastered hunting techniques, meat of large mammals is somewhat difficult to obtain in nature and leftovers from predators are relatively rare. So, over some weeks or months, your’e sure to cover your needs in the best conditions.
I have this same experience as Iguana.
Such talk of anti-fruit makes me believe the fruits you get are far different from mine.
You’re right: I could see in America how fruit tasted, even 50 years ago. I think they are much more fade and boring now with all the advances in agricultural industry… Even here in Europe, instincto is hardly praticable with the commercial fruits. That’s why I created a predecessor of Orkos in Switzerland in the 70s. BTW I have no longer any interest in Orkos...

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:23:31 am »
I was talking about raw wild red meats when I spoke of my taste preference for red meats, not  processing, mixing, cooking or any new stuff or process.

As for obtaining a properly functioning alliesthetic mechanism that one can rely on, it's not possible for me to eat only wild meats, and if it takes more than two years before one can draw any conclusions, that's rather disappointing and would make it difficult to know what to do. If it takes 20 years, that's even more daunting.

Again a misunderstanding:  I said two years would be insufficient not to set up the allesthesic functions, but to see the links between overload of animal proteins and immune diseases.

If raw wild meat smells and tastes attractive, you certainly need this food at the moment. But it would be wrong to conclude the same quantities may remain attractive and sane for twenty years. This is the difference between Instincto and conventional dietetics reasoning: the needs are always varying and unpredictable. Thus, it is always a delusion to believe we could apply rules about what and how much would be healthy or unhealthy.

Sorry, I’m very busy at the moment: I’ll answer to the other posts Sunday or Monday.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 29, 2011, 07:07:16 am »
Can you point to any evidence other than your experience and that of the dieters you supervised to support this hypothesis?
The instincto diet allows to observe some facts which remain unobservable when masked by all disorders induced by a “standard” diet. So I could easily see a lot of cases which showed me this effect on immune system and then I formulated an adequate theory. Medicine doesn’t deal with food antigens so that the link between food and immune system disorders couldn’t be taken into account. Only one researcher (Jean Seignalet, who had watched one of my lectures made a series of experiences with auto-immune diseases suffering patients and could verify the phenomenon.

My own experience has been that plant proteins have been much more problematic for my immune system than mammal proteins.
Tell me please which plant proteins you ate, how you assured your regulation, which guaranties of non processing you had, and which symptoms you could notice. 

I also prefer the taste of wild red meats to other wild meats, so this is a nonfactor in my taste preference.
I think you didn’t understand what I mean: it's not a difference between red or white meat, but the fact that the genetic drift of domesticated animals causes their meat to lack a normal instinctive stop (whatever the color of their meat). When you talked about red meat, didn’t you mostly refer to the consumption of beef?

I agree that wild meats are likely superior to domestic, especially when the domestic animals are fed diets that differ greatly from their natural wild diets and the wild game are eating wild foods and getting enough to eat.
You’re right, denatured diet modifies the nutritional value and taste of domestic animals, but genetics does much more. Wild boars living in nature or fed processed food are different in taste and diverge somewhat in causing an instinctive stop, but that difference is perhaps ten times less than between wild boar and pork when both have been fed the same kind of food.

A little over 2 years. Do you hypothesize that at some point I will start to prefer wild fowl to wild mammal meats? If so, what is your best estimate of how long it will take for that to occur?
Honestly, it’s very short to draw conclusions. I waited twenty years before I published mine.
No one can hypothesize anything about your future preferences, everybody being different  –  and differently intoxicated from previous diets. But if someone persists with meat of domesticated animals for several  years, he/she will never discover the true taste of wild game because of a likely overload of animal proteins.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 28, 2011, 06:55:09 am »
My goodness, mammals' proteins are sounding worse and worse. Are they really pernicious?

Mammals' proteins can be of high nutritional value. The effect of too much and too frequent intake of mammals' proteins may be worse than that of other proteins, because of the similarity with our own proteins. Plants' proteins would be the most remote, so the least dangerous. But experiments systematically show they are not sufficient. The point is not the kind, but the quantity and the repetitiveness of each food intake. So, your fondness for variety is surely the best deal.

I do like variety, though my overall preference for red meats over others hasn't changed.

The only problem is then the non natural taste of domesticated animals’ meat: the instinctive stop may not warn you correctly of an overload. Thus you are better of with game meat, at least intermittently in order to acknowledge a potential overdose of mammals’ meat.

A question: for how many years have you been eating raw red meat regularly?

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:04:59 am »
PLANT PUFAs in higher amounts are already extremely unhealthy in their RAW state. You don't need to cook them to make them toxic

Please indicate an example, so that we understand what you mean. I think we don't speak about the same thing.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 28, 2011, 01:36:43 am »

If wild birds' proteins are remote...
...then wild ocean fish / clams / oysters / shrimp / crab must be remote from us as well?

Absolutely ! It seems actually those proteins don’t have the pernicious effects the mammals' proteins have.

I prefer the taste of wild land mammal meats to wild bird meats, so per your law of the alimentary instinct, shouldn't I eat more of the mammal meats, despite concerns about the immunogenicity of the proteins?

If in this moment you prefer wild land mammals, then eat wild land mammals. When your need for this class of proteins will be covered, you’ll probably often prefer other sources, like birds or shellfish or arthropods or fish, or nuts.

However, this self equilibration doesn’t work rightly if you systematically lack other important classes of nutrients, like vegetables, fruits, etc. In this case, your organism can try to compensate the lacks and remain a too long time on the same source, with the deficiencies it may cause in the longer term.

It is also possible that your appetite decreases because you lack certain substances needed to digest those provided by your diet, or you become bulimic if your organism is trying to cope with a too restricted class of nutrients. Unilateral inputs always result eventually to disturbances of one kind or another.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 27, 2011, 11:47:53 pm »
Why do you recommend wild goose?
It was a hint about your experience. Birds are better for our immune system because their proteins are more remote from ours than proteins of mammals, and therefore they induce less confusion by our immune system. Wild goose has a very strong taste (much more than chicken or beef) which makes the instinctive stop very sure, so you couldn’t eat more than a palm.

Good Samaritan:
You certainly are right when you say American fruits cannot compare with yours from Philippines.
A very simple way to know if you eat too much fat is greasy hair or skin, particularly nose and brow. But the taste and consistency indicate it too: as soon as it appears less tasteful and less melt-in-the-mouth, you begin overeating.
I’m afraid the principle one must eat a LOT of animal fat is a new urban legend in the world of dietetics…

Paleo donk:
Experiment instincto first and speak later! For sure, your body will see things more clearly than your brain.
Now, if you find a woman who feels happy all her life with an unique paleo dink, it’s all right!

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 27, 2011, 06:32:50 am »
Cherimoya kid :
I don’t think my wife had eaten cake before her cancer appeared. She certainly would have told me. It will be one more rumor around instinctotherapy – of which these forums are riddled. But I had never heard of it. Anyway thank you for letting me know about it.

But its true that after she knew she had a cancer, she was quite distressed and she took Renutril in the last few weeks, but this is obviously not what induced her cancer a couple of years earlier. What made me sorry at the time, is that she refused to do the only thing that could have improved her state: stop eating large rations of beef daily.

General answer:
I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to regulation of food intake by the change in taste: beef, pork and mutton do not change flavor normally, and even less when eaten with fat. Even for an experienced instincto, it is extremely difficult to know where the instinctive stop is.

The phenomenon is explained by the fact that farmers have unconsciously selected these animals during thousands of years. It is always the animals providing the best tasting meat (and therefore a taste varying as little as possible to unpleasant) that have been promoted in reproduction. Simply because their meat seemed better: when you eat regularly a natural food, its taste becomes less pleasant. Farmers were certainly in a state of saturation and have been automatically searching for the animals they considered the most palatable. It can be seen today when comparing the drift of beef with bison, or sheep with mouflon, or pork with wild boar.

That's why I recommend to check regularly with wild meat (goose is ideal!) if there is no overload: otherwise we can not know. Eating a palm of meat, as recommended by Rosendale, does not guarantee a proper regulation: sometimes you have to remove the meat for a while to find a satisfactory balance, and on the contrary sometimes you need larger rations. We cannot predict it, simply because nobody knows anything about the actual needs and capacities of an organism at a given time.

As for the response to Löwenherz, it comes down very well in line:
GCB, I'm really disappointed that you still stubbornly ignore all the numerous negative reports about instincto dieting after so many years.
So, please tell me actual cases (not rumors) on which you base this statement.

About glucose :

Glucose: as an energy source

Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans. Use of glucose may be by either aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key source of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing approximately 3.75 kilocalories (16 kilojoules) of food energy per gram.[4] Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle (TCAC), glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy sources, mostly in the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the concentration of glucose in the blood. A high fasting blood sugar level is an indication of prediabetic and diabetic conditions.

Glucose is a primary source of energy for the brain, and hence its availability influences psychological processes. When glucose is low, psychological processes requiring mental effort (e.g., self-control, effortful decision-making) are impaired.[5][6][7][8]

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 24, 2011, 06:37:58 am »
As Iguana asked me, here is a brief summary of my observations and inferences.
I should point out first that the observations on which I rely on cover a long period, from 1964 to recent years. They deal with raw meat, especially beef, pork, mutton and game. I have seen that excessive consumption of protein over several years can cause keratinizations (dry skin, callus under the feet, hands calluses, cracked fingers, wrinkles, dandruff, brittle and overgrown nails and hair, thickening of warts, etc.), immune disorders or autoimmune disorders (eczema, rheumatism, arthritis, arthritis, etc..) and tumor growth.

The task was first to define the notion of "excessive consumption". Data from conventional nutrition science, which recommended a given amount of protein per day, does not account for individual differences or variations in requirements depending on the state of the body. The experiment was therefore based on sensory data: when consuming raw meat without any seasoning nor other deterioration, and as much as possible wild meat, there’s indeed a change in taste perception coupled with feelings of fullness that can indicate the need’s fulfillment.

Immune disorders are explained as follows: when there is digestive or metabolic overload, a proportion of the ingested proteins escape the enzymes responsible for degrading them, while they retain their antigenic structures – that is to say that the immune system recognizes them as foreign to the human body. If the situation repeats itself excessively, there may be sensitization (allergies), tolerance (paralysis of the immune system to certain types of molecules), or an autoimmune reaction (the immune system turning against the cells of the body, either that they display similar proteins or that foreign proteins are set on their membrane).

I can only recommend to people who experience systematic consumption of raw meat to remain very vigilant. Although initially everything seems to be fine, induced disorders may occur much later, and be fairly irreversible. I myself eat almost everyday an animal protein of various sources (meat, fish, shellfish, crab or eggs), but I stop as soon as it becomes less tasty or at the slightest feeling that I have eaten enough of it. So I’ve been able to put under control the disorders that had arisen at times when we experienced an excessive consumption of meat (mainly beef muscle) – whereas it went so far as to cause the death of my wife.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Is it dangerous to eat too much meat?
« on: November 24, 2011, 06:30:51 am »
You say "massive Amounts of the domesticated sugar bombs from Orkos" ... Could I ask you on which fact this statement is based ?

There has never been any problem of excess sugars with a correctly practiced instincto. All fruit sold by Orkos are grown in optimum conditions and chosen to be as close as possible to the original strains. It is impossible to have an adequate supply if you want to be limited to wild products only. But through a relearning of flavors, we adapt very well to the fruits and vegetables currently available

The best evidence that this equilibrium is fully achieved is given by a very sensitive criterion: the inflammatory tendency. By the way, this is a fundamental discovery that I was able to do in the instincto context. When following the changes in foodstuffs’ taste by stopping the intake as soon as a negative component appears (too acidic, too spicy, too sweet, too bitter, etc.), the inflammatory tendency disappears.

This can be easily seen when a fresh wound is healing. It occurs without redness, without any  pain and with no irritation nor any swelling around the wound. If one forces the intake (by breaking the red lights in taste), we see these signs immediately reappearing – after only one meal with overload. If we then return to a precise control, the pain quickly disappears, followed by the disappearance of the redness and swelling (often in less than a day).

It is matter of "sugar bombs" only in nutritional conditions where one ignores the signals from the senses, or else in case of cooked or seasoned food which leads to systematic misleading of the senses. We can then easily cause sugar overloads, which explains the mistrust that has developed against them. Glucose is the number one fuel for all life forms. It is of course not the sugar itself that should be demonized, but rather the changes we apply to foodstuffs to make them taste better than plain: it is these processing that leads to a permanent overload.

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: What do raw paleo children prefer?
« on: March 18, 2011, 06:51:02 am »
I really don’t understand from where all this nonsense on instincto children comes from. If you want an example of a child born instincto from a mother and a father who already had 10 years of instincto behind, who has never eaten cooked and still practice instinctive nutrition, here are some pictures of my youngest son taken when he was 25.

I emphasize that he has never done any particular sport or workout and that his muscles spontaneously formed, as we can see in those pictures. Another clarification: no cavities. His food: 100 % paleo organic products grown without chemicals and without heat processing, either direct or indirect (nothing hot dried, no heated compost, etc.)

In one of the pictures he’s with my first son who has eaten 100% instincto ever since after being 3 years old.

I hope this will stop the stupid rumors circulating on this forum and encourage those who had supposedly seen too lean instinctos children to question what  kind of instincto they practiced.

PS: The small bumps on his right arm are drops of water, not a sign of denutrition  ;)

The problem is primarily a question of vocabulary. What do we call "instinctive stop"? A sudden stop such as we can’t continue, as happens with pineapples, kiwis, figs ? Or a set of sensations that one must know how to interpret as a sign of satisfaction or danger?

Subsidiary question: Why are there products with which these events are very clear, almost intrangressibles, and others who are in much more rounded or blunt forms?

Animals stop extremely neatly with all natural products. We may therefore be tempted to think that’s not only the fault of the products, but also that of a bad learning of alliesthesic mechanisms, and perhaps of a genetic drift.

On the other hand, the animal probably does not only take account of flavor changes, but also of internal sensations associated with ingestion, such as feeling of fullness or satisfaction. Experience shows that if we want to balance properly, we must stop at the slightest sign of red light: either when the taste turns from pleasant to unpleasant or when the first message of the stomach occurs – "as soon as we feel that we have a stomach" ...

With selected products such as commercial fruit, we better stop as soon as the transition occurs from the luminous phase to the pleasant phase, what means we must at first for each natural product discover what the luminous phase means. It is easier to find the luminous phases when using our nose to select foods and by avoiding any overload or other physiological disorder.

So, I call "instinctive stop" all the physiological signals which must be considered to obtain optimal nutritional balance. All sorts of causes make these signals to be not always very clear, including the fact that they have not been learned in early childhood and not put in connection with the consequences of an overload on the physiological state.

This requires an apprenticeship, and the rules of instincto are nothing more than an attempt to define conditions that promote  such a learning. Without these rules, there are often drifts that make nutritional balance unsatisfactory as people become accustomed to an overload condition, i.g. with selected fruit or meat.

It is clear that intuition also plays a role, but it is very difficult to discern the true insights of the inductions which the surrounding context may press on our mind. In addition, the line between true intuition and paranoia are unclear, so I prefer to speak at first only of the physiological aspects. Experience shows that this physiological aspects are sufficient (with unprocessed foods), this according to very specific criteria such as the regulation of the inflammatory tendency.

General Discussion / Re: Raw eggs: whites and yolks.
« on: March 06, 2011, 05:14:53 am »
If you need egg’s white, it would be very palatable to you.

If the raw white seems tasteless, you do not need it. Ingesting it would therefore do no good, only disturb your digestion. Better put it in the compost where it will hurt no one.

General Discussion / Re: Raw eggs: whites and yolks.
« on: March 06, 2011, 04:28:47 am »
Some details about instinctive consumption of eggs:

The eggs used in the records I talk about in my books (more than 40 egg yolks in a meal, etc..) were produced in chicken houses where there were enough cocks, so were they fertilized.

The instinctive stop doesn’t seem to be different with unfertilized eggs (checked with very precise criteria like inflammatory regulation).

Quality of poultry feed is essential: the eggs of free ranging chickens in a meadow with other animals are much more tasty (their flavor reminiscents of wild bird eggs, because the hens consume more insects. If they only receive grain, their eggs are particularly bland. The neatness of instinctive stop is in proportion to the flavor’s intensity (though gastric signals should also be considered).

Large quantities consumed very occasionally do not overload the body nor its digestive capacity, which is easily verified by various criteria (quality of digestion, absence of farts, well-being, unlocks of instinctive calls for other foodstuff, longer term health results...).

These quantities appear excessive only in relation to dietary beliefs, but these beliefs don’t take into account the individual’s current needs, they are based only on average needs. There is therefore no basis to assert that occasional large rations would prove any instinctive malfunction: they are instead evidence of profound disturbances, due to earlier intakes of unnatural food, such as large deficiencies in lecithin or other disorders that require exceptional amouts of specific nutrients. That's why I call such phenomena "therapeutic amounts". Only our alimentary instinct can help recognize such type of needs - as they are sometimes seen in pregnant women.

All the research done on the assimilation of egg’s white don’t take into account  neither  the instinct nor the current individual needs. However, these needs modulate the secretion of digestive enzymes, so that we can not conclude that the egg’s white, inassimilable  under usual (cooked) conditions, should also be in the conditions defined by the instincto. This point deserves further research.


If people suffering from allergies are sensitized towards NCS, their immune system does not tolerate these NCS.  So you think that at least people suffering from allergies are NOT in a state of tolerance towards NCS? What about people who do not suffer from allergies? Are they not sensitized against NCS and instead do tolerate them? I thought you claimed that all cooking people are more or less in a state of tolerance towards NCS. At least some other instinctos did claim that. What about people suffering from autoimmune diseases? Didn´t you claim that autoimmune reactions destroy NCS in the body?

When you say " Tolerance towards NCS ", remember that there is a very large number of NCS. Tolerances, such as immune responses themselves, are specific. That is to say that one type of molecules will be tolerated while closely alike molecules will not. A tolerance develops under the effect of repeated administration of an antigen, usually after a period of sensitization with increasing reactions: it is as if the body understood that it becomes uselesss to fight against the repeatedly incoming antigen and waives its normal vigilance.

This is clearly the case with antigens from cow's milk: the baby often begins to react to the first bottle by diarrhea, vomiting, fever, buttons, etc.. Then the symptoms disappear and everyone is happy. It is however only a grace period, and it suffices to discontinue dairy products long enough, or to absorb similar cattle antigens to trigger an "allergic" reaction - so called because the reason for its importance remains unknown.

All signs show that the body gets rid itself of foreign molecules, so I think better to speak of detoxination reaction rather than allergic reaction. Especially since a correct practice of instincto keeps these reactions within perfectly endurable limits (whereas allergic presupposes unbearable disorders).
It seems that a prolonged practice of a denatured nutrition induces multiple tolerances, for a large part of the antigenic NCS  due to traditional foods (milk, wheat, AGEs, etc..). It seems that cooking produces a lot of non-original antigens; for example roasted peanuts are 90 times more allergens than raw peanuts.

If this model is correct, the body of an individual contains a series of different molecules that may have accumulated in favor of specific tolerances, all of which will, following particular stimulations, give rise to reactions of detoxination. One of the challenges of instincto is precisely to ensure proper management of these reactions, so that they do not cause any damage due to an uncontrolled runaway.

I emphasize that these notions are not currently recognized by traditional medicine. The result is that many reactions remain unexplained, and it is very convenient to stick them the label of allergy. Allergies get traditionally explained by sensitization to an antigen (eg pollen, cat hair ...) repeatedly put in contact with the body. But this explanation does not explain everything, especially the fact that the practice of instincto very systematically allows to eliminate allergic symptoms (although it triggers the appearance of some in the beginning, especially if the practice does not comply with the rules having taken place along the experiments).

If I were not in a state of tolerance towards NCS even when I still ate cooked food, why did I begin to react strongly to cooked food only after i had eaten strictly raw food for some time? And why did I react strongly to cooked food, although my allergies to pollen, pet hairs, house dust  mites and insect poison (as well as my autoimmune diseases) had almost or completely disappeared? And why did my reactions to cooked food even became stronger the longer I ate rawfood?

The answers are straightforward, from what has been said above. If the tolerance ending occurred after discontinuation of traditional foods became excessively strong for you, it's probably because you didn't practice the instincto in the rules. It takes very little for the symptoms that normally would be virtually silent to become intolerable.

The raw food brought you out of all kinds of tolerances, which was reflected by symptoms of “allergic” reactions, so that your body reacted again normally to antigens of cooked food. Immune vigilance is proof of good health. This vigilance has undoubtedly extended to more and more antigens along the duration of your practice.

Best regards

Thank you for your answer.
Why do you think that allergic reactions can be a sign fo detoxification?
What do you think are the culinary roots of allergies?
How could allergies against pollen, pet hair or house dust mite be caused by abnormal molecules?

So, what in itself is an "allergic" reaction? It is a reaction of the immune system that disturbs the host, because it is stronger than normally, resulting in unpleasant symptoms.

There is no clear boundary between so-called normal immune response against foreign molecules (called antigens to express the fact that they trigger antibody formation) and an allergic reaction, except that the latter seems to escape the normal regulatory mechanisms (which can be recognized in the silence of the organs).

Why can there be a relationship between NCS (New Chemical Species derived from processing that accumulate in the body) and common antigens (all molecules from the environment recognized as foreign by the organism: hair, dust mites etc.)?

For a very simple reason that we usually don’t think about enough: there are multitudes of "cross-reactions" between different antigens. "Cross reaction" means that two different antigens trigger the same reaction of the immune system because of similar molecular surfaces.

Principally, the immune system identifies each antigen and implements a specific reaction. Each antibody produced has molecular reliefs which correspond exactly to the reliefs of the antigenic molecule to which it is intended. There is little risk of confusion. But with the billions of possibilities, some reliefs still lead to confusion, calleds "cross reactions" by immunologist.

It is thus understandable that a reaction triggered by a new antigen may be of unexpected importance if a similar antigen has already been introduced into the body and has "sensitized" the immune system. Therefore, food antigens (incompletely degraded molecules crossing the intestinal barrier) can sensitize the immune system, so that other antigens (dust, pollen, etc.) will trigger apparently inexplicable cross-reactions. This will ultimately lead to an allergy to foreign antigens, without suspecting that the reaction itself is induced by food antigens.

The converse suggests that by stopping the penetration of these food antigens (switching to a natural diet which doesn't contain the same non-degradable molecules), the immune response to environmental antigens will decrease rapidly. This is what can commonly be observed after transition to instincto.

However, there are some cases where these reactions occur with delay. The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens, such as the effect of repetitive consumption of dairy products. Then it may happen years later that a new antigen, from an unusual food, from an insect bite, from a bacterium, will cause the awakening of the immune system (immunologists refer to it as "breakdown of tolerance"). This apparently inexplicable reaction thus may seem disproportionate.

Reactions of this type are called "detoxination reaction" in instincto slang. Note that antigens capable of "awakening" the immune system, can derive from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, or from another organism), but foods are most often sources of antigens that provoke a breakdown of tolerance.

This concept is compatible with conventional notions of immunology, except that immunologists have not yet realized the importance of food antigens since they are unable to show their effect in the too repetitive context of a traditionally cooked diet.


I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?

If I trust the experience, the body is not mad: olfactogustative perception is organized in a way to make pleasant the flavor of helpful foods. I've never seen a case that puts this basic law in default, provided that the food is presented as natural (no processing changing its flavor neither seasoning, mixtures, preparations of any kind nor artificial selection etc...).

We should however be wary of the reciprocal: a tasteless natural food can be toxic, especially when the sense of smell or taste is not normally developed (as is the case in the culinary contex).

We know now that the flavors experienced by the child at an early growth stage influences the number of sensory receptors in the olfactory bulb. With the smells far away from those of natural products to which we have been confronted, we can understand that our olfactogustative operation is not as sensitive and reliable as it should be. There is also the issue of properly reading nutrition-related sensations, which may be biased due to a lack of learning, or to a learning itself biased.

The very purpose of instinctotherapy is to use what we have left of a normal instinctive operation to find anyway an optimal nutritional balance.

If you want a more precise answer, tell me what are the foods with which you have experienced changes in flavor such as the new flavors were still enjoyable and the precise circumstancies in which this happened.


This is a part of your theory I have never understood. Doesn´t the body consist mainly of water, protein and fat? So if there are any tissues the body would like to replace - why should it be necessary to eat massive amounts of carbs to do the job?

Where did you get such ideas? Carbohydrates play an equally essential role than proteins and lipids in the constitution of our cells. The quantity is not everything.

Proteins assure a polarization of the membrane, but this role is primarily devoted to carbohydrates. They form varied and complex structures at the surface of the membrane. Carbohydrates are attached to the membrane in two ways: to the surface through intramembrane proteins (glycoproteins) or to lipids of the membrane (glycolipids).
The carbohydrates have several roles:

     * Recognition: the carbohydrate units are highly antigenic (eg blood groups).
     * Participation in the local environment, carbohydrates are highly polar molecules.
     * Strengthening the membrane.

In animals, carbohydrates form a soft felting called glycocalyx. Membranes are fluid interface structures between the extracellular and intracellular medium that a cell can adjust in very specific ways to meet its needs. It plays both a role in communication with the outside world and a role of sorting molecules of interest to the cell. These properties make the membrane one of the most important organelles of the cell, the only one any cell can’t do without, even temporarily.

Thus, glucides play a major role at both the cellular level and at the immune system level.

Moreover, stocks of fats that the body produces in part from carbohydrates, and glycogen itself (long chains of starch as a store of carbohydrates in the liver and muscles) may also be affected by the contribution of abnormal carbohydrate molecules. An excellent example is provided by 2-deoxyglucose molecule in all points similar to glucose, apart from the lack of a single atom of oxygen, which accumulates in neurons and blocks the normal metabolism of glucose. The same fate may await all kinds of carbohydrate molecules denatured by cooking.

It is therefore not surprising that the intake of denatured carbohydrates, alone or stuck to other molecular debris (non-original glucoproteins, glucolipides etc.), disorganizes the functioning of the body and that replacing them is an early task of "reconstruction" or "normalization" ever since the natural diet allows it. That is, at least the assumption that seems best to stick with the facts.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk