Writing in English is a bit difficult for me. If you don´t understand me, please let me know . And if you want to correct my English, I will be pleased.

Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !

Hanna, Majormark, KD : I’m quite busy these days, so please be patient till I find the time to answer your pertinent remarks and questions.

Could a moderator edit my message #22 in this way, since the time during which I could do it myself is elapsed:
Personally, I stick to the facts:  the instinctive nutrition such as I defined it, by taking account of the indications of all the sensory perceptions, allows to obtain an optimal nutritional balance.

Thank you Inger, very good question!

The instincto theory provides two answers, one theoretical and the other empirical.

Theoretical answer (thus doubtful): it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa. If such were the case, one could quite simply admit for example that the diet of Bushmen must be the most closely corresponding to our genes. They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.

We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists. We are in any case the inheritors of genetic data much older than the pithecanthropus, which himself came from primates. The genome very slowly changes with time, and the epigenetic mechanisms of adaptation remain limited. It is thus necessary to go and see on the primates (or their own ancestors) side to know the starting point of our genes.

But we can’t go back in time. Establish the food range from the archaeological or paleontological data is always questionable, considering the different preservation time of various food. There remains a way then: go and see what the descendants of these primates eat today in nature. There are, at the very least, infinitely more chances that they maintained their old behaviors while living in nature than did men under the effect of culinary and agricultural artifices, or simply by its greater capacity to modify the environment. It is clear that plants are a major part of all the primates diet. The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.

Of course, it cannot be immediately concluded from this that man still has the same digestive and metabolic characteristics. It is necessary for this purpose to compare the digestive tracts and in particular the structures of the digestive enzymes. According to the publications I could access to, there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans. It is thus rather probable that we adapted right from the start for a similar food range.

However, the empirical answer is obviously the surest: how does our body function in the long-term with such or such food range? I can testify today, and I am absolutely sure of the following results: in consuming approximately 2/3 of fruits, 1/4 of vegetables and 1/12 of proteins, the long term instinctos are very well. I have personally soon half a century of practice, and I am in a far better shape than the average population of my age. I look 10 or 20 years younger than my real age, as is the case for most long-term instinctos. The mean BMI (Body Mass Index) calculated out of 43 long terme instinctos is perfectly in the standards, and shows a much narrower dispersion between the various individuals (three times less than in the average population).

But the most important criterion is the growth of children: a body growing from 3 kg to 60 kg is made up for the most part from the nutrients it has received during its growth. If he or she is able to be constituted without deficiency, without accumulations of foreign substances, with normal or even better than average  height to weight ratio and performances,it's that he/she found in the diet all the necessary substances, without exception and in proper amount, which means that the alimentary instinct has assumed a right food balance corresponding to the needs. There are a quite a few children fully grown up who were born from instincto mothers and who practiced strictly throughout their life: they are in perfect health and present the desired criteria of normality, without any deprivation symptoms, nor over /underweight. They didn’t have the usual kids illnesses neither.  

The fact that all these criteria are satisfied with instinctive nutrition is a proof of good performance, in particular of the alimentary instinct: all these persons practice the choice of foodstuffs by their flavors and they ingest the amount indicated by alliesthesic variations of taste and stomachic signals. But be ware with the reasoning: it doesn’t inevitably imply that a different diet cannot have such favorable effects (there isn’t inevitably exclusion of a diet by another).

The only thing I can say, it is that the “zero carb diet” doesn’t match what can be expected from the evolutionary laws, since nothing implies that our ancestors having had a more carnivorous diet than apes could adapt to it in order to have a equaly good health (it seems Neandertal men, for example, had significant health issues concerning in particular the children, but it’s true that they most probably cooked their meat and perhaps other food). The fact of having survived a period of intensive carnivorism does not mean that health was at its best, but only that reproduction was possible. To be able to deduce that the adaptation to the diet guaranteed an optimal health, it would be necessary to count over much longer periods.

Personally, I stick to the facts:  the instinctive nutrition such as I defined it, by taking account of the indications of all the sensory perceptions, allows to obtain an optimal nutritional balance. It is recognizable by the fact that the inflammatory tendency is reduced to a minimum: no infections and no red edging around small wounds, no lasting pain in the event of wound, fracture, etc (the pain of the impact lasts only approximately three minutes), whereas an excessive consumption by forcing the instinct or by eating domesticated animals meat whose savor is softer than wild game meat brings a return of the inflammatory tendency, hyperkeratinisations, neoplasms, etc .

This said and to answer some unsupported affirmations, nothing allows to demonstrate, either theoretically nor empirically, that humans would not be adapted to the consumption of fruits. Nor that the absence of fruits, if only through the protein over-consumption it generates to compensate for a lack of calories from carbohydrates, would be without long-term effect on health. You undoubtedly heard of the kidney stones of Lex Rooker: it’s almost certainly directly linked with an excess of proteins and uric acid.

But finally, everyone has to do his/her own experiments. I also paid with my health for all those I’ve done in the aim of developing instinctive nutrition.

I eat it in different ways. Often just sliced directly from slab, eating it pure and cold, but I also airdry it sometimes, like ground beef burgers airdried for 12 hours, or jerky. Love them. Sometimes I make beef tartar. Seldom I fry it rare (rather "blue"  ) in the pan, this could also happend if I eat out. I always feel great after eating meat, it is so strange! Feel just good. Oh, I like aged meat too. I often age it for a week or more in the fridge. I eat about 500 grams to 1 kg meat a day, about 90-160 grams pure protein maybe. My Halibut is wildcaught and fresh, not frozen etc. or salted. I always eat it plain, love the fatty taste.

OK ! I can better answer you now.
As I could observe during my own experiences, back at the time when I was developing my method, several artifices you’re using are bound to perturb your alliesthesic mechanisms:

•   Ground meat for your beef tartar (it’s precisely the disappearance of the normal alliesthesic reactions with ground foodstuffs that triggered my awareness, more than forty years ago, of the harmful influence of mechanical denaturations)
•   Jerky beef is by definition a dried seasoned beef
•   Fried meat
•   Other exceptions to the practice to avoid any food processing

The proper function of our alimentary instinct depends on the frequency of such artifices. There wasn’t any meat grinder in the Paleolithic era. Indeed, the experiment shows that the alliesthesic mechanisms function correctly only insofar as the body is not too disturbed. If not, all kinds of vicious circles can settle.

It is a case of what I call a “bottomless well”: it suffice that a single foodstuff thwarts the alliesthesic mechanisms for our intakes begin to exceed the standards; there is consequently an overload in some nutrients and this overload makes the foodstuffs with which the alliesthesic mechanisms function correctly loses their attraction, and therefore we continue to overload ourselves with the doubtful stuff.

The “bottomless well” concept applies to meats of domesticated animals for the following reason: during thousands of years, the stockbreeders unconsciously gave the precedence to the reproducers whose meat was the most “easy” (that allowed to enjoy its ingestion while there was at the same time an overload due to the first cooking receipts or to the first agricultural artifices). Lamb, pork, beef have thus lost the negative savors allowing our sensory perception of savors to warn of an overload, and the more we eat it, the less other foodstuffs are attracting.

There comes in addition the fact that commercial meats are from animals nourished in a doubtful way and thus often having an abnormal taste which thwarts the gustatory mechanisms even more. That’s why I would advise you to avoid the commercial meats and continue your experience with wild meats.  

 

I try to follow my body every day to see if I get some symptoms that are no good, but still nothing there. Only good things happend, like my skin is better, my teeths, my gums never bleed anymore not even after flossing! I feel calm and strong. Satisfied. I also was taking bloodtest a few weeks ago, they was abslot perfect, also my B12 status was very good and vit.D too! My cholesterol-levels was totally fine, high cholesterol, but a lot of HDL and my triglycerides was really low. Perfect.

The effect of a protein overload does not appear immediately. Our body has metabolic ways allowing to assimilate proteins and to get from it the energy normally brought by carbs. The noxious effects are marginal and are felt only by a slow and insidious accumulation until a  certain thresholds is crossed: excess of uric acid, hyperkeratinisations, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, etc. Even the fact of feeling well can be confused with a jamming of the reactions necessary to get out of the vicious circle, for example the re-integration of pancreatic secretions indispensable for fruits digestion.

Yeah, I never continue eating if strange tasting, that's for sure. I was ordering Entrecote from Orkos sometimes, I never got tired of that eather.

Exactly: you cannot count on a “strange tasting”, said otherwise on alliesthesic modifications of savors, with meats of domesticated animals; these signals are too weak and it’s better to learn how to recognize them with wild meats. Perhaps it will be by stopping meat consumption during several days or even weeks that you could get out from the vicious circle…

How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths? It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.

Indeed, the superiority of the instinctive nutrition on various diets is due to the fact that it doesn’t exclude any class of food. It rejects only foodstuffs resulting from agricultural and culinary artifices, since experiment showed they cause problems on the level of the sensory mechanisms, metabolism, immune system and nervous system (like wheat and animal milk). But the class of graminaceae and animal foodstuff are not excluded. It is thus the most complete natural diet ever.

The absence of any artifice able to thwart the alliesthesic mechanisms guarantees an optimal nutritional balance. It has among other advantages the return of the gustatory pleasure to its original function: guiding towards foodstuffs answering as well as possible, among the available choice, to the real needs of the body. No dietetic principle can ensure the correct answers, because these needs are different from one individual to another and  from a moment to another. Only a regulation set out from the internal data can be done in real-time.

Third advantage, this regulation is carried out by sheer pleasure. That is due to the intrinsic nature of the alliesthesic mechanisms, which alter foodstuff’s taste from pleasant to unpleasant according to whether they are useful or not for the body. The point is in fact to find back the nutrition’s natural laws: the animal avoids by nature the unpleasant things and it is therefore always the pleasure that insures nutritional balance and health: pleasure becomes the key of well being – it is even the first condition for a good health (this works only with natural foods, consumed without processing).
 
In short, instinctive nutrition thus unites together the completeness and the possibility of optimal balancing by pleasure. It’s not amazing that it allows to reach results other methods cannot provide – as well in the field of physiological balance than on that of psychological balance.

I think it is ridiculous though the way it is advocated, especially in someones modern home. Necessarily it must take place outside in the wild, most likely the tropics in a tribal setting with very few tools and no permanent dwellings and so on. The fact that instinctos are glossing over the very basic premise to their own diet and not accepting this fact is depressing and very hard to take them seriously.

You slip here into ideology: the fact that alliesthesic mechanisms were developed in contact with a primitive food environment doesn’t mean in any specific way that they are unable to function in a house! It’s just necessary to take account of the difference between the primitive environment and the current environment in order to correct the possible drifts that could occur. For example it is an integral part of the method to learn that meats of domesticated animals (too soft) and artificially selected fruits (too sweets) tend to thwart the gustatory mechanisms and that therefore taking some care should be obvious. Training of the odors and savors is also necessary, considering it was not done in early childhood. The perfection certainly doesn’t belong to this world, but the conditions under which the instincto is practiced constitute an excellent approximation of the original conditions.
 

I do appreciate their arguments as again I always learn something from someone who has a vastly different approach to nutrition or any other science for that matter.

Being able to learn from a thesis that one takes for erroneous is a proof of wisdom. But starting from a prejudgment or a hasty conclusion on the falseness of this thesis is likely to prevent you from learning the valid points it could convey…

Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully

« Reply #122 on: Yesterday at 04:14:30 PM »from Paleophil
GCB, what if any influences did inspire you all those years ago when you came up with your ideas that people call Instincto?

Not easy to answer that… A brain is under all kinds of influences, and very often under the influence of data not perceived consciously. But anyway, I’ll try to somehow describe these rather animated early developments.

The first influence, which marked the greatest turning point in my existence, was the lymphoblastic sarcoma that left me with only 20% chances of survival for next 5 years in 1961. I became aware of the illusion that are the majority of human activities, of the importance of health and the urgency to try to understand the reasons of the existence of diseases like cancer.

Another influence was undoubtedly that of the theoretical physics, which fascinated me and that I had taught as an assistant in the previous years : I kept from it a particular love for the axiomatic and logic of reasoning, which drove me to seek a model of reasoning as rational as possible concerning health. Thus I was quite naturally brought to blame the food: all our biology functions on the basis of molecules; the main source of molecules in our body comes obviously from food. It is therefore necessary to wonder which are the molecular factors likely to be reflected on health.

A third influence was a coincidence: I noted that a red cabbage that I had kept along an extended journey to USA changed taste according to the state of my body. I concluded that there were gustatory mechanisms (called today “alliesthesic”) that could correspond to the body needs. It’s true that during several years, this red cabbage remained like a kind of Damocles  Sword above my still conventional dietetic concepts. If there are mechanisms ensuring the variation of sensory perceptions according to the body needs, the very basic principles of dietetics become null and void. Any external regulation can only take account of the average needs in a given population, and not of the individual needs and their variations in time.

I was also under the influence of experimental physics. Each statement must be checked empirically, and it is certainly this frame of mind which pushed me to make several kinds of experiments with animals, then on myself, then all kinds of observations on the relationship between food and health, all this during several years. Therefore I managed to define, on the one hand the concept of alimentary instinct, on the other hand that of molecular denaturation, and a whole series of rules which proved to be necessary so that the perceptive variations (thus the language of the body) can achieve its goal: an optimal nutritional balance.

Other influences: vegetarians who contacted me, at a time when I thought that animal foodstuff were suspicious . But this influence didn’t last since I quickly could note, simply by the play of the alliesthesic mechanisms, that raw animal food is essential for a correct nutritional balance. Eggs, fish, meat took an odor and a savor more and more attracting, and the experiments showed that their balanced contribution was capital for a correct operation of the human organism.

There was also the influence of the opponents, who often attacked me in a very visceral way , and sometimes pushed me to take too intransigent positions. But I believe that the influence of my studies of physics, mathematics and psychology have helped me to keep a position as objective as possible and to react rather calmly to the often aberrant attacks my ideas are regularly the object.

It makes me think of another factor: I always adored the philosophy of sciences, and this taught me to take a step back and look at the subject from a broader perspective in face of the often aggressive and destructive reaction by which novel ideas are received. I draw from these harassments two conclusions: either my ideas are truly aberrant and I must revise them or even give them up; or else my ideas are too new, too hard to understand, too difficult to put into practice.

That shows once again Max Planck was right: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."  

Thanks for the responses KD and alpha. I eagerly await the instincto retort to this very obvious and very important fact that the differences in taste and quality of wild fruit changes dramatically over fruit on the kitchen table.

I’m precisely experimenting on this right now, by comparing the fruits collected on wild trees to on those of an orchard, eaten on the spot or at table and to those bought in stores. The difference is striking.

But the experiment shows that this difference does not irremediably ruin the function of our alimentary instinct: fruits too “easy” (artificially selected to fascinate the mouth), produce a temporary overload, but this overload dopes the alliesthesic reactions so that balance is restored rather spontaneously. This under condition of taking account of all the instinctive signals: smell, taste, changes of consistency and stomach's feelings (fulfilment, not filling up!). It is true that in my first writings I didn’t sufficiently emphasize the importance of the proprioceptive feelings.

The danger of dependence to fruits does not exist under these conditions. However (and that could explain the divergences on this point), the alliesthesic mechanisms do not function correctly when the body is under the effect of a major overload (for example a ZC diet, a partly cooked diet, a too narrow range of foodstuffs, etc) or under the effect of an intoxination resulting of years of SWD.

It would be helpful that those intervening here start by at least three weeks of proper instinctive nutrition so that they can experiment by themselves the way in which the body ensures its self-regulation. No danger for them, I’m practicing strictly for soon half a century and feel perfectly well.

Tyler, I agree that instincto is fairly popular in Germany (and France) in the sense that many people heard about it and a sizable number of them even tried this diet yet very few succeeded to stay on it.

It’s true that only a small number of the persons who decide to practice instinctive nutrition are able to do it for a long period. But it would be an error to conclude from this fact that our alimentary instinct doesn’t work. Several other factors (social, correct food availability, psychical conditioning problems and so on) explain the difficulty of such a diet and all should be taken into consideration before conclusions are drawn.

And those very few (as myself) who apparently succeeded actually do not practise instincto but just a form of raw paleo i.e. do not regulate "instinctively" their food intake as Burger claims them to do.

This time it's an error of premises: I’m very well in position to know that someone practicing “instincto” and being attentive to his/her intrinsic feelings (instinct) fare much better than others who, like Alphagruis, don’t have the patience or the motivation necessary to care of their sensory perceptions. (A small reasoning error comes) In addition, the ones who do not care to feel the smell of all the foodstuffs available before to choose a particular one or don’t consciously watch for the savor modifications, nevertheless obey to their instinct since they don’t swallow the stuff having or getting a bad taste ( and it’s well known that the sense of smell contributes to the savor’s perception).

Yet I do not at all underestimate the tremendous outstanding role of instincto and Burger in popularizing and promoting the RAW PALEO concept and diet. Burger was aware of and worked out these ideas more than 40 years ago long before many others came to them in more recent years. Instincto in spite of its unfortunate label implies and is basically a RAW PALEO diet.

Thanks for the unusual compliments. I must however note that alphagruis briskly confuses what I call  “instinctonutrition” (a diet without food preparation nor denaturation and without wheat and milk) with a RAW PALEO diet. However, the alliesthesic mechanisms function anyway with foodstuffs left in the rough, whereas they are disorganized by the mixing and processing generally practiced by the raw foodists. No reasoning nor conclusion drawn from observation are relevant if the differences between these two contexts are not taken into account.

What I criticise sharply is that part of instincto which tells people they can regulate their food intake by means of an "instinct" based on olfactory and gustatory sensations. Roughly the stance "eat what smells and tastes goods and so long as it does so and don't bother about food composition, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, omega 3 fatty acids  etc". That part is just pseudoscience and unfortunately eventually very dangerous.

Alphagruis lacks a complete sight of the facts, his views being based on appearances without having looked further into the cases. In opposition to he’s affirmations, nutritional balance occurs in a manner very close to the quantities recommended by the nutritionists, even for the B12 vitamin on the persons free from ideas against animal foodstuffs. On the contrary, to draw from a general theory on the complex systems that the instinct could not exist is pseudoscientific. The subject would deserve to be discussed objectively and without insults.

The fact is that unfortunately no such simple principle of dietary balance actually exists and that we have to find out and learn how and what to eat to be healthy.

False: the experience shows the opposite. Such a system exists and is located at the level of the various alliesthesic mechanisms. But it is necessary to place the body in an adequate context so that this system is able to work properly. It is in particular put at fault by the preconceived ideas taught by dietetics, whose principles cannot take account of the instantaneous nor individual needs.

Please notice also that the superiority of wild game meat can be understood in simple terms of healthier diet, life and also sharper naturel selection constraints in the wild as compared to domesticated animals. No need to invoke the dodgy concept of "better adapted instincts" in this respect.

Indeed, the quality of wild foodstuffs does much for the superiority of the wild game meat. However, a wild animal nourished in captivity, like the bison for example, keeps a wild meat savor which marks out the instinctive stop correctly, whereas the meat of a domesticated animal like the pig, even living under conditions close to wild boars, does not take at all the taste of the last. The genetic drift is undoubtedly the simplest explanation of this difference.

I usually eat pastured beef

Ok for the pastured beef, but two questions remain open: how is this meat after (or right before) slaughter treated? How do you eat it? All kinds of reasons can make that the organoleptic characteristics of the meat are altered (for example mechanical treatment to make it more tender, grinding,  addition of a little salt, too systematically mixing fat and flesh, etc). It is enough to modify a little the organoleptic characteritics of the meat for the alliesthesic mechanisms do not function normally anymore. One can then be accustomed to eat a food very frequently while the body doesn’t have any need for it. The danger is double: on one hand overload in some nutrients, on the other hand a blocking to other foodstuff may occur.

A protein overload is particularly dangerous because of the interactions with the immune system, knowing that the surplus molecules, badly degraded, keep their antigenic structures. The reactions can be of two principal types: a food intolerance of allergic type, or a tolerance which settles with the long-term repetition, i.e. the immune system will not react any more to certain antigen classes close to bovine molecules. It is in my opinion this tolerance (or more exactly the whole lot of these tolerances induced by all kinds of food molecules badly degraded under effect of digestive or metabolic overloads) is partly responsible for the immunity failures which leave the field free to the proliferation of abnormal cells, therefore to cancer.

and wild caught fish, like halibut.

According to what I could very often note, wild fish takes a crippling flavor when a protein overload induced by an overload of meat is present. I fear that your halibut is also victim of an unspecified treatment, for example irradiation, or simply of salt for the conservation.

But it differs with wild meat. Deer I cant eat long time, then it tastes strange to me, same boar.

Absolutely: wild game meat quickly gets a strange taste, which corresponds to the instinctive stop. The rule which has been empirically set is that one should eat only wild meat and only if it is marvelously tasty, just like seasoned (what I call the “luminous phase”). As soon as it takes a strong and unattractive “wild game” savor, it is quite simply that it is useless or harmful.

Elk I never get tired of.. Strange..?! Halibut is also wild, I don't get tired of it eather, I usually eat 150-200 gram per serving.  

Check the processes these products are subjected to. They are certainly denatured for an unspecified reason. It is a rule that has always been checked: a product which has a “bottomless well” effect, i.e. one can consume it in excess without it becoming repulsive (or at least not attracting) is a denatured product. You should tell me your total intake of proteins on average per day if you want me to get a better grasp of where you stand, nutritionally speaking.

Linden leaves I never get tired of, I love them. Every singel day.

A repetitive fondness for a nonfood plant precisely testifies to a permanent disorder, which could be due to a systematic protein’s overload. Normally, after having ingested some a few days, the linden leaves should appear detestable to you. Unless, once again, that you bought them in the traditional circuits, where they are very generally hot dried.

What do you think about pig (also boar?) and cancer? Could there be a connection?
Why is it that so many traditions do not allow to eat pig.

The problem is not different of the other wild meats: Care should be taken that the animals live in free range and do not receive a denatured food which could distort the taste of the meat.

Why is it that so many traditions do not allow to eat pig.

To my knowledge this tradition comes from the Jewish religion. It could be explained by the fact why the Jews nourished their pigs with their kitchen left overs. It was then not difficult for them to notice some disorders of behavior in the consumers, the abnormal molecules concentrated in the meat causing an anomalous excitation of the nervous system, for example an aggressiveness or sexual excitation excess, therefore a difficulty to obey the Ten Commands…

When i eat Kassia I never used more than a teaspoon or two / day. I still have the feelings it somehow was not healthy for me. Especially not for my teeth's.

One or two teaspoons can be an excess, if your body does not need any cassia this day. The absolute quantity does not make sense since it does not take account of the real needs of the body. Excess starts at the time one absorbs a quantity exceeding the need (or digestive potential). Perhaps there are days when you would need carob, or another antidiarrhea

It also soon can get a bulimic note, you eat too much / strange combinations, then just take Kassia and all is good (because it comes out fast the other way and you feel good again.. ). I used it this way too myself back then, I just did not wanted to see it.

Indeed, a vicious circle can settle: alimentary errors --> excess of cassia --> new nutritional error, etc. It is enough  to avoid alimentary errors, and to respect with cassia as with the other products the indications of the sensory organs.

Somehow I also have the feeling it is no good to eat all these fruits etc. what naturally is not growing here in the north.

I thought the same thing during years, then experiments led me to reverse the idea: we evolved from primates which would have adapted during million years to tropical countries, so that an exotic choice of products compensates for the scarcity of adequate products in our current habitat (which would probably never have been possible without the use of fire).

I come from Finland, and I feel so good on only animal foods - zero fruits. Could it be that for high fruit consumption to be healthy, you need a lot of strong sunshine, like in the tropics?

The reasoning has something satisfactory: the products found where one live should be eaten. But nothing says that in a few thousands years we adapted physiologically to the Scandinavian region. We likely live in places where the products which should eat do not grow…

author=Inger link=topic=211.msg37791#msg37791 date=1276819156
Do you really think raw meat can cause cancer, even without fruits? (AGEs) Don't you think, it could have been the meat and fruit combination (eaten on same day) that was no good?

It is always difficult to separate the variables. Is it the protein excess in itself, the more specific meats protein excess, or the combination with other molecules as consequence of an insufficient degradation? I'm just testing on myself to distinguish the things by experimenting. I leave always at least half an hour between the intake of animal sources of protein and vegetable’s intake to avoid the formation of AGE’s (along with others substances not yet identified which I more generally called "molecules foreign to the normal metabolic cycle"). Even in this condition, observation of the hyper-keratinisations immediately allows to see if there is an overload, for example small skins fragments which raise around the nails and become painful at the touch, cracks at the end of the fingers, warts which increase volume, layer of keratin on feet, neoplasic formations, etc.

As you got this lump at the back of your knee (from raw meat eating), were you eating fruits/sugar too, then?

At the time when I saw this tumour growing on the tendon at the exterior of the knee, I was experimenting to eat much meat (beef, porc and lamb), by seeking a clear instinctive stop in order to see if it existed. I did not take any precaution concerning associations, because at the time the issue of AGEs had not appeared yet.

How comes that meat tastes good to me all the time?

Are you eating wild game meat or meat from domestic animals such as beef, lamb or porc? The instinctive stop is extremely indistinct with meats of domesticated animals whereas it’s very clear with game meats (chamois, roe-deer, wild boar, marmot and so on, as well as with shellfish, crustaceans, wild fish, etc). Thus, try any game at least once to see whether you are really attracted by wild meat.

If the instincto-theory really worked, I had to get tired of it someday..?

Exactly! This phenomenon often occurs in the first years of instinctive nutrition. For example, I could eat kilos of honey, up to more than one kilo in a day without the least digestive nor other problem, this during perhaps two years. The same with pollen: an incredible diet of pollen, it appeared as attractive to me as lined biscuits but afterward the quantities fell. I feel now generally satisfied after some spoons of honey, the rare days when it attracts me by its smell. Pollen becomes dry and without taste sometimes after the first spoonful. The same happens with every food, provided it is sufficiently close to the primitive form. For example, durian: when I discovered this fruit, it appeared so attractive to me that I thought I’ll be able to eat it for ever in large quantities. Then the margin between what I call "luminous phase" and "unpleasant phase" became increasingly narrow. I eat it now with the same delight, but in moderate amount.

The problem is to interpret this phenomenon: first, the change shows a selfregulation (= instinct) exists. Then, it could be either a saturation due to the fact that, in the end, one cannot bear any more a certain absorptive total quantity of some toxic or antigenic components of a product. Or more probably, considering the whole picture provided by the observation of many people, a process of compensation, either of old deficiencies due to traditional food or a form of "reconstruction" of the body with natural substances, for example by stimulating the elimination of old foreign molecules thanks to a massive contribution of suitable molecules.

By the way, I used Kassia every morning for three years. Now I have the feeling, it just prevented the nutrients absorbing. No good. I don't use it anymore.

It is true that cassia fistula in excess can prevent the absorption of the nutrients, especially if we eat it in too large quantities or in an unbalanced way. But that occurs only if one eats it by principle, without taking account of the instinctive call. It is not difficult to identify the need for cassia with a chocolate taste making it very pleasant. I never saw it being harmful under these conditions. On the other hand, to do without it by principle can have disastrous consequences by preventing our body to eliminate some toxins through the intestinal tract. The toxins exit then often by other ways, in the form of "elimination crisis". There are in nature all kinds of plants which could have properties similar to cassia fistula, but we didn’t spot them yet. Therefore, to remove cassia locks the body in an environment where it cannot achieve its normal functions any more. More still if fruits are removed…
 

Lovely post, but the problem I have with the above is that these "best possible conditions" are extremely poor and artificial for moderns. Necessarily instinctual eating needs to take place in the wild, or at least with food supplied like it would be in the wild and this is fairly impossible.

All right: it’s impossible to find back a primitive environment. But any serious physicist will tell you that an experiment is always an approximation of the initial assumptions. By excluding cooking, mixtures, seasonings, animal milk, modified cereals and other plants, the conditions of primitive nutrition are approached very closely already. In any case, close enough for the alliesthesic mechanisms to function with a precision sufficient to control nutritional balance in the long run, BMI, inflammatory tendency and several other criteria of good health. That of course under the condition we use the sensory perception nature provided us to choose and control our food intakes (verified  by the fact that the same criteria of equilibrium get lost when instinctive stops are voluntarily trangressed).
gcb