Ok, tbh I just chose this picture because I thought it represented variety well, with all the different colors of carrots.

The thing is you can find plenty of variety just with wild foods. A wild carrot from one area will not taste or look exactly the same as a carrot from another area. It might not even look the same as the carrot growing right next to it.

some varieties of domestic fruits and vegetables are more nutrient dense than others

Are there really domestic fruits that are more nutrient-dense than their wild kind out there?

Yeah, and this is why I don't think a veggie-heavy diet is good for most people. The taste change comes really fast with most wild veggies. This is not nearly as true with (at least some) wild fruits, meats, and seafoods. I've never tasted a wild veggie that didn't have a really fast taste change.

There's a French writer called Dominique Guyaux who created his own version of the instincto diet called the "reasoned sensory diet" (Alimentation Sensorielle Raisonnée or ASR). He wrote a thesis on the role of the senses in human's dietary behavior on raw paleolithic foods -basically what the instincto diet is all about, but with additional evidence, and more detailed explanation of the whole mechanism in question.

His thesis is available for free here (Waring: it's all in french)

http://www.guyaux.fr/memoire/index.html

In his thesis, he also explains in what kind of environment the first hominids must've evolved in, why our sense of smell is less precise (or narrow) than that of a carnivore, and to what kind of foods and in which amount our dietary senses had adapted to.

Dominique Guyaux hypothesize that our dietary sense might not regulate amounts as accurately for every category of food, for the simple reason that they were not all available to humans in the same quantity, at all times.

Page 69 of his thesis, he represents it on a simple panel where he classes foods in three categories :

-Proximity (almost always available, can be found pretty much anywhere: roots, bulbs...)
-Seasonal (limited yearly availability: fruits)
-Rare/random (carcasses, honey,...)

And represents the consumer's behavior to these products:

-Accessibility (can I get my hands on some every day, all year round?)
-Sensory Curiosity (Is this food appealing to me?)
-Specific sensory satisfaction or satiety (Is the sensory stop clear?)

He explains that Proximity foods have a high level of accessibility, therefor human's Sensory Curiosity is pretty low since it's always around, and our organism's need of specific macro- and micro-nutrients found in these foods is usually always covered. This is why our Sensory Stop is very clear on foods such as carrots, because our body prevents us from over-eating it, de par it's great availability.

On the opposite, meat was in the early days of humanity a rare commodity, with low Accessibility, and therefor a great Sensory Curiosity for it's rich nutritious profile, and with a much milder Sensory Stop to it's consumption, since early man never really had the opportunity to over-eat on it. Early man never knew when the next steak was available again: in a week, a month...

This explains why it is much easier to eat plenty of meat than it is to eat other foods that were highly available in times when the dietary senses where still put in use.

I'm not saying you can't eat tons of carrots, but the stop will be much clearer than with meat.

They did that in the USSR. 10 million people starved to death. They did it in Maoist China. 45 million people starved to death. It's not a good idea.

Replacing big companies with state companies is not the idea here. Seems to me that Tyler is talking about encouraging the development of small, independent companies. It may give people a broader choice of products, and quality. Since these small companies would have to rely on fair competition, unlike Unilever and such, the chances of getting quality food at low prices might be greater. But IMO there will always be bigger, hungrier, sneakier fishes in the sea.

Jeune, you have no idea what rights are.

What are rights according to you? Maybe the meaning is different in Argentina.

There's no such thing as worker's rights. You don't get special rights just for being a worker.

Well in Belgium there is, and I'm pretty sure these worker's rights can be found all throughout the European union, including Spain.

Belgium: https://www.socialsecurity.be/foreign/en/employer_limosa/infos/otherobligations/labour.html

Spain: http://www.foreignstaffing.com/about/international-labor-law/spain-labor-laws/

There are only human rights, and they are the rights to own property, including one's own bodies, and to not have their property aggressed upon by others. And these rights haven't been breached here.

If they are being harmed with pesticides because they are not provided the necessary protection (protective suit, masks...), then their right to good health is being violated. Among other things. Right to hygiene must be written somewhere there too.

Nobody forced them to be migrant workers.

Well we could discuss history of colonization and its impact on various native societies, but that's not what we're about today.

Nobody forced them to be migrant workers. They chose to do that out of their own wills. And what's more, that's not the employer's problem or their responsibility to fix. If someone would starve if you don't give them a job, does that make you responsible for hiring them? No. It's their responsiblity to find their own means of subsistence that don't involve committing crimes against others. If you still want to help them, that's perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be compelled to by law.

That doesn't give the employers the right to treat them like slaves. Again, it goes against basic human rights. Send them back to their country or treat them like respectable employees.

Workers.

And what do you mean by exploited? Everybody is exploited. Exploitation means putting some resource to use. You are exploiting me by reading my posts, and I'm exploiting you. The workers are exploiting the employers to get jobs that will pay them, in their view, better money and with better working conditions than they were able to get in their own countries. We know this because they chose to move there and stay there with all the complications that implies, just so that they could have those jobs.

Well, in french, the word "exploited" is commonly used in situations where the person is abused, works a lot in often bad conditions, and is given little in return.

I didn't say they lied. It could all be true and it would still be extortion. And of course, if they don't want the jobs anymore, it doesn't cost them anything to make up lies.

Extortion, that's the word.

Yes, it could cost them a (free?) trip back to misery home.

The only valid complain is the one where they said they're only being paid for 16 days even though they worked 26, which I doubt. And the part about pesticides would only be valid if they were told they wouldn't be sprayed with them. If they were aware of what was going on and they chose to keep the job, it's their responsibility if they got sick.

So you do think they're lying. Yeah, maybe they're exaggerating numbers so people actually react. It's understandable.

Like I said, they might have nowhere else to go, having no money for a return ticket or a smuggler, and their job could be the only one accessible to illegal migrants. Too bad for them, had to think twice before taking that boat to a fantasized better life. Can't blame the farm owners for being a tinny bit flexible on some laws...

That could very well be true, but that's not the point.

Point was their complaints probably won't be listened to, as the Spanish state benefits more from export than it does from looking after it's illegal immigrants, so them trying to lie to extort money would be a very desperate move.

Where did the water come from when it was small and all covered with land?  Cannot be under the land since rock is much denser than water.

Good point!

It's not as much about the anti-nutrient content as it is about how well the body can deal with them to access the good stuff. Same with some fruits like pineapple that are deliciously sweet when needed by the body, and awfully acidic otherwise (from my experience).

Of course when the nutritional value of a certain food is a lot lower than it's anti-nutrient content*, like raw grains, our body simply does not bother to put in the effort to counter these anti-nutrients, as it would not be worth it in terms of energy loss, which is translated into the fact that they often do not appeal to the person's senses (view, smell, taste, texture in the mouth...).


*Or rather when a certain type of food cannot be processed properly by humans, like grass, or eucalyptus leafs that koalas enjoy so much.

I wholly disagree. I recall one famous pop-singer revealing how, for reasons of poverty, he once had to  eat just raw potatoes for one whole month and very nearly died as a result. Bad idea.

Well there's a difference between being somehow forced to eat raw potatoes, and actually finding them appealing and in the end benefiting from it, like this Belgian guy. GCB agrees that it is not a regular paleo staple food. It's more of a medicine food that people may sometimes be attracted to in usually less extreme amounts.

I would guess your body would want the opposite, if anything. That's been my experience.

There's also people who are at first repulsed by such foods, especially when they have "overdosed" on it in their SA/€D days, and only later begin to get attracted to them again, in their raw form.

A lot of people get powerful detox reactions when drinking wheat grass juice, which may suggest that the stuff is getting rid of the processed wheat toxins.
 It's only a hypothesis.

Have you tried implementing these foods to your diet in their raw form again, recently?

I remember reading in Guy-Claude Burger's "Manger Vrai" an anecdote about a Belgian guy who ate half a kilo of potatoes per day for three months in his instincto beginnings. And Guy-Claude Burger jokingly adding "Yet another Belgian who used to eat too much french-fries!".

Joke or not, it made me wonder if their was actually a connection between what type of processed food we ate in the past, and which kind of food we were later attracted to when our dietary senses were finally able to function properly. As far as I know, their is always a phase in the beginning when our body is attracted to certain foods in sometimes huge amounts to correct some deficit, repair, and detoxify.
Maybe the fact that some people, like this Belgian guy, were craving potatoes in such important amounts is really because these raw potatoes were useful to the body to counter the damage done by their highly processed equivalent.

My question is then this: Is it important to put on a plate any type of food that could've harmed us in their processed form in the past, to see if our body is attracted to them for healing purposes?

eg: Put plain wheat grass or sprouts on the table and see if our senses make us want to nibble on it, or eat it whole.
      Or put sugar beets and sugar canes to see if our body wants to detoxify from the processed sugar.

Has anyone ever experienced something like that while on the instincto diet?

Some people huh..Do you study finances by any chance? You seems quite knowledgeable on the subject. Or maybe I'm the ignorant one  What kind of sanction did G4T face?

That's amazing, Tyler  Did you ever get to meet him in person?

There is something to that JK. I know that I have stopped wearing even boxers. I wear suspenders and it is very comfortable. When I was a teen I had a loss of sensation on the inside of my legs that caused me to go to the Doc. He said it was the tight u.wear and he was right.

I rarely wear boxers under my pants too. The thing is, my penis glans is uncovered (not from circumcision, just naturally since I'm 12) and when I start moving at high velocity it starts to rub against the pants' fabric. I once participated in a obstacle race called "Spartan race" in England, and at the end of it I found numerous bruises on my glans, so now I've decided to wear boxers when exercising, and am looking into foreskin restoration techniques.
I also have a problem with the fact that most standard looking pants tighten up around the pubic area, which causes my bush to look quite weird, with scarcer hair on top where the belt goes, and longer, more dense hair on the bottom.

I thought about wearing suspenders to prevent that, and even built a sort of "arch" made out of a bent metal ruler that would free my pubic hair and would attach to the pants with pegs. I never actually used it...

I think Indian-type pants are a good idea since it's more socially acceptable than skirts, it has plenty of space for testicles to hang, and you can wear it at high waist to prevent it from compressing your pubic hair.

Hey Marcus, if you have no other option than to hunt your own animals, might as well do it with style 

http://tinyurl.com/lqmw9ma

He's a fellow Australian too!