Explain Instincto Diet Fully

[GCB]

presume, that Instincto doctrine would imply only eating when hungry, right?

We should rather say : number one rule of the natural diet is to eat when the body needs it.

Hunger does not always match a need for food since it has been distorted by the cooked food effect. Therefore, we must learn to recognize the real hunger from false hunger: it’s one of the first steps of our alimentary instinct rehabilitation. To feel puckish might for example mean something quite different than a need of food, a digestive difficulty due to an overload at the previous meal or a detoxination problem.

After practicing for a while, your principle becomes applicable and it is, of course, an advantage of not feeling compelled to eat in absence of a need for food. But real hunger does not drive us to eat whatever is available (except perhaps in case of denutrition): even in case we need sugar, for example, some fruits may still be repulsive. Real hunger is therefore something much more selective than what the culinary tradition would imply, knowing that cooking recipes largely result in the disappearance of the instinctive appeals selectivity.

[Paleo Donk]

Can someone explain the difference between eating fruit that was picked several days ago and ripened off the tree vs. fruit picked and eaten immediately from the tree in the area that it was designed to be eaten. I hear there can be quite a difference with respect to taste for fruit that is eaten freshly picked. Papaya's for example generally taste like vomitted mango to me but I've heard first hand accounts that their taste changes within 20 minutes of being picked.

[GCB]

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.

[KD]

Obviously, there is no "adequate context so that this system is able to work properly" possible If wild animals placed in and undergoing changes in context do not behave according to this theory.

My comment was and remains simple, if you take two types of food which are both compatible for an animal or a human, and take them out of their natural circumstances, the choice between them will NOT depend 100% on which has the best or most needed nutrition. And therefore the idea that our instincts lead us to choosing WITHIN THOSE RANGES the right kinds of foods and amounts is false.

no replies to anything, obvious instincto while able to defend against minor attacks about speculative benefits, cannot defend against common sense things about animals even in their own environment - nevermind ours- not choosing the best nutrition in every meal but rather between foods that they CAN eat. If so, the crapy bird seed I have i the most nutrient dense product in a 20 miles radius.

Can someone explain the difference between eating fruit that was picked several days ago and ripened off the tree vs. fruit picked and eaten immediately from the tree in the area that it was designed to be eaten. I hear there can be quite a difference with respect to taste for fruit that is eaten freshly picked. Papaya's for example generally taste like vomited mango to me but I've heard first hand accounts that their taste changes within 20 minutes of being picked.

There is such a huge difference between eating food "off the tree" than in any other situation even than eating wild fruit. The reason that is in quotes, is even that concept is fairly unnatural in terms of what delivers the 'best' experience of fruit eating.

In my time on fruit farms, the fruit trees that were not managed and grew relatively 'wild' and uncollected at the periphery of the acreage had fruit that was either a.) on the tree and un-ripe or b.) on the ground and either fermented or at least partially infected by maggots, bugs, worms and even spiders. This was the case in all sweet fruits, and citrus I found in other places traveling like oranges and starfruit. Berries and a few other fruits being exceptions. The 'wild' type bananas and dragonfruits and all kind of things that grew on preservation had the same issue, you had to take the fruits and bring them back home and ripen them. Fruits like mamey (which is one of the most delicious of fruits) many of the fruits that fell never even riped, you would pick it up and it would be like a fruit funeral inside. To get a really delcious fruit, I would have to score one that looked well by taking a chunk with a knife to the skin, and then put it in a paper bag under my tent for two weeks. Papaya was the same thing, once it got a little yellow on the tree you had to pick it an place it in the sun away from insects like a rope basket for many days. I have some pics of fallen jackfruit that look like some kind of horrendous monster oozing bugs and fermentation.
-

I think someone that already does well with fruit, being among fresh fruits would be a big advantage, but I'm not sure it would make much of a difference for those that have problems with fruit because of fungal type issues, although just being in the tropics is somewhat detoxing/healing.

-
Yum! in fairness I carved it to look like that.

[Iguana]

My comment was and remains simple, if you take two types of food which are both compatible for an animal or a human, and take them out of their natural circumstances, the choice between them will NOT depend 100% on which has the best or most needed nutrition. And therefore the idea that our instincts lead us to choosing WITHIN THOSE RANGES the right kinds of foods and ammounts is false.

Not 100% perhaps, I may agree. What about 99% ? Or is it 88% ?

Thanks for your nice pic of a jackfruit. I saw a lot of them like that in Sri Lanka. I observed monkeys eating it and I’ve eaten it too several times: they are most often delicious in a similar state, just perhaps a little bit less advanced. I’ve frequently eaten papayas picked straight from the tree; sometimes birds had began to eat it before me, but I don’t care. I’m very found of fruits fallen on the ground, such as very ripe mangos, figs or whatever.  The EROEI* (energy returned on energy invested) or EROI* (energy return on investment) is extremely favorable in such cases.

*ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource.

[alphagruis]

Can someone explain the difference between eating fruit that was picked several days ago and ripened off the tree vs. fruit picked and eaten immediately from the tree in the area that it was designed to be eaten. I hear there can be quite a difference with respect to taste for fruit that is eaten freshly picked. Papaya's for example generally taste like vomitted mango to me but I've heard first hand accounts that their taste changes within 20 minutes of being picked.

Depending on fruit it is well known and one can easily check that there is often a marked and sometimes even a huge difference in taste, smell and most likely in quality as a food.

Let's notice by the way that this fact by itself highly questions the instincto dogma and practice.

Yet, there is precisely much more in this respect that falsifies instincto even if one neglects such "details". Burger's views sound like a joke when one realizes that one cannot seriously assume, as instincto dogma implicitely does, that the quantity of fruit that's ingested is the same when eaten directly by picking them on tree in wind, sun or rain and eating them from a basket in a modern air-conditioned home after buying them from someone who has done the picking job. When one has to climb to an upper level in the tree to get at the next fruit as compared to stretching one's arm toward a basket on a table...

Obviously the amount of food eaten cannot be essentially a matter of gustatory and olfactory sensations. Things are much more involved and complex than that    

 

  

[Paleo Donk]

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.

[KD]

Not 100% perhaps, I may agree. What about 99% ? Or is it 88% ?

I didn't say I didn't eat any bug infested fallen fruits . The large Florida type avocado fallen and sitting in the sun is incredibly tasty, compared to store bought tasteless watery crap. With the jak, yes, you CAN eat it, and in fact I made off with half of a similar one. But the question is would a modern person choose a perfectly ripe fruit where all the starches had converted to sugars and not at all fermented, or a rotten mess inhabited with spider eggs? Again just because a monkey does it doesn't mean its most optimal for us OR them. No matter how you swing it they are also more suitable for digesting both starch and I assume do better with fermentation. They also seem far more attracted to those sources of "protein", which any comparison to them should make insect eggs and grubs far more enticing than even game meats we could scavenge.

point still that you can alter nature with perfection or distortion by artificial conditions and quantities without resorting to unnatural process like cooking especially if we are talking stopping points and the like.

anyway, even if we can argue about this fruit eating...


I honestly still think 88% is way too high. I have no doubt that instinct can even make people seek out certain foods that they are deficient (this part is true both in nature and in people that are unwell) but not that an animal will put up any fuss in accepting whatever variation of its natural food at any moment or given choices. An experiment would have to be done wherein an animal became totally deficient upon eating the given food in which it turned it down and returned to its own resources to hunt down or acquire other wild foods. This leads me to believe that when conditions are completely in ones control, divorced from ones actual skill or prowess, that choosing small amounts of this or that (like in the case of game meats which would be unlikely), or large amounts of this or that, is dictated equally by artificial means, needs,  or desires. So even if one has a genuine signal to eat this or that, it probably isn't estimating a situation of highest health.


I've never been in a true jungle, and maybe the places I visited were artificial precisely because they had no indigenous fruit eaters, but the unkempt/unharvested areas really were a complete rotten stinky mess. Bugs everywhere, fire ants etc...definitely not a place where you'd want to meditate all day in some garden of eden. This is not a retort against instincto, just a general observation that although fresh fruits are tastier, that some level of 'farming' and proper harvesting can also yield tastier results. The general criticism is that all store fruits are picked early and unripe, and I can say that this is definitively true, as you can not ship and sell a fruit picked at its proper level of ripeness, but intellect and maintenance in this case is also useful.

-

[Inger]

What about the fact(almost a fact ) that our ancestors were Cro Magnon and Neanderthals, both mostly Carnivores as far as we know?
Aren't we genetically adjusted to eat mostly animals?

Why do the Instinkto-theory warn against larger meat consum? But not larger fruit consum.
How comes that Instinctos eat mostly fruits.

I think fruits/sugar is addictive for a lot of people. Not wild berries/local wild fruits I think, these would be no problem, but almost ALL fruits are NOT wild.
How comes all the talk about wild meat but not wild fruits that much.
 I think you should be more careful with fruit overload, especially if you live in colder climate like I do.
High fruit consume are in no way natural for us up hier. That I think would be so important to mention.

Look how many instinktos and rawfooders get problems with their teeth's and other things..

Inger

[TylerDurden]

Technically, Instincto philosophy doesn't mean avoiding raw animal foods and there are Instinctos who eat lots of raw animal foods. And the studies claiming that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were mostly or wholly  carnivores have been completely debunked by newer, more recent studies showing that Neanderthals etc.  ate a  degree of plant-foods etc.

[Inger]

Hi Tyler,
yes, I know that Instictos eat meat too. Most of them.
But from what I know here in Germany (people I have met) they eat a lot of fruits too.
And there was always this talk about; be careful not to overload meatconsum, that could be dangerous!
These are only my personal experiences, though.
What plant foods could our ancestors have been eating in north Germany / Scandinavia? I just wonder. In summer berries etc. ok, but in winter hier is nothing.
I also have nothing aganst a little seasonal plant food now and then, I actually think that is good for us, like some wild berries in season or wild edibles. But not like most are practizing! Loads of tropical fruits and vegetables and nuts.
Oh no. Me it made kind of addicted, I fear.
And it hurted my teeths.

But I do not know for sure. Maybe I did something else wrong? But oranges (ripe) always smelled and tasted good to me and they still hurted my teeths.
My body should have known, they did me no good!!! Why it does not?
And fennel (also from Orkos) I loved to eat it pure, mono. But it gave me terrible gas. How do it still tasted and smelled delicious to me. I do not understand.

Inger

[PaleoPhil]

Technically, Instincto philosophy doesn't mean avoiding raw animal foods and there are Instinctos who eat lots of raw animal foods. And the studies claiming that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were mostly or wholly  carnivores has been completely debunked by newer, more recent studies showing that Neanderthals etc.  ate a  degree of plant-foods etc.

Most carnivores eat plant foods too, so eating some plant foods doesn't mean one can't be considered a carnivore. Remember these wolves eating berries? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmuYTb6ynbg They're still carnivores.

It's only obligate carnivores that don't eat significant amounts of plant foods (and even there the obligate carnivore big cats eat some grass--probably medicinally, though). So eating of some plants is not disproof of carnivory.

[Josh]

more recent studies showing that Neanderthals etc.  ate a  degree of plant-foods etc.

Got link Tyler?

[KD]

What about the fact(almost a fact ) that our ancestors were Cro Magnon and Neanderthals, both mostly Carnivores as far as we know?
Aren't we genetically adjusted to eat mostly animals?

Why do the Instinkto-theory warn against larger meat consum? But not larger fruit consum.
How comes that Instinctos eat mostly fruits.

I think fruits/sugar is addictive for a lot of people. Not wild berries/local wild fruits I think, these would be no problem, but almost ALL fruits are NOT wild.

well the only problem with this as Tyler says is none of it can be proven. Never mind in our origins, I personally do not believe even on an anatomical level today we are closer to a chimp then say at cat or pig, but for the sake of argument, I'd be willing to accept that the instinct mechanism was suitable for choosing the right percentage of foods, if I thought that any animals in the same conditions would eat this way. Since I don't even believe this is true, I don't even have to speculate if this method brings us to our natural percentage of plants to meat or types of each.


As for the wild/cultivated thing, this is totally true. very few true wild fruits exist in the form of their origins and even many pure fruit eaters will admit that true wild fruits would not have the appeal of contemporary fruits, mushy, non-sweet, tasteless etc...basically non sustainable for their current 'success'.

[Inger]

Yeah, have you tasted wild Durian.
That is nothing like Morn Thong, Chanee, Gradoom.. all those. Nothing like them.
It have a very thin layer of meat around the kernel, like some millimeters only, and the meat is gray and not looking good.
The taste is.. amazing. So much more satisfying than cultivated Durian. But what a huge difference.

I love wild rosehips, I really do. And wild strawberrys (the very small ones) and wild blueberries etc.. From all these I never ever got any negative symptoms.
That is the proof to me that only these are really good for me. Not cultivated fruit.

I have made this conclusion to my self; Just eat that what can also easily grow around where you live.
So, in winter it will be animals only, and other times wild edibles and berries in season in addition.
That is optimal nutrition to me.
So easy, so viable.

Inger

[Paleo Donk]

Got link Tyler?

The link he has is from one young woman who has written a few papers and from my knowledge is the only person on the planet to have "proof" that neaderthals were not carnivorous. In her research, she lasered off some gunk off the back of the teeth of some neanderthals and found traces of grains iirc. This one researcher far from disproves anything since I don't think the research has been repeated by anyone else and we have no idea (and might never know) to what degree these grains were present in the diet. I, for one would like to see much more evidence than this one person, before saying anything like "completely debunked"

Here is her home page

http://home.gwu.edu/~ahenry/index.html

In most areas of the world, plant foods are abundant and predictable dietary resources that have played important roles in the social and behavioral organization of present hunter-gatherer groups.  It is likely that plant foods were similarly important to our ancient ancestors, but due to vagaries of preservation it has been difficult to answer questions about their use of plants. Having been trained in plant microfossil analysis, I am particularly interested in examining questions regarding:

I'm tempted to call her and ask if shes a vegetarian.

[GCB]

 
When arguments are missing, there’s still unproven assertions and deliberated distortions, even stabs in the back and insults to vilify the disturbing ideas.
 
Alphagruis never provided a single clear reasoning, nor answered my arguments so as to show that the concept of alimentary instinct such as I define it would be incompatible with scientific theories, in particular with the new theories of the complex systems and emergent functions. He’s pleased to launch peremptory assertions, which impress some… even though no one understands them, perhaps not even himself.

He’s not the first to be disturbed by the human alimentary instinct concept: therefore one should wonder, on one hand if this concept is truly aberrant and dangerous, and on the other hand why it triggers visceral reactions up to the point to indulge in insults and slandering and to refuse an equitable debate
.
I have noted ever since 45 years that the concept of a human alimentary instinct disturbs. It is firstly necessary to know what one understands by instinct: my use of this word takes into account perfectly rational alliesthesic mechanisms, namely the whole cluster of perception variations able to contribute to the regulation of the food intake. These variations are recognized today as alimentary alliesthesia has been the object of several scientific publications since the first was published in 1971(Cabanac), seven years after my own observations.

It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that these variations of sensory or proprioceptive perceptions would guarantee a perfect nutritional balance by themselves alone. On the opposite, the instincto theory such as I developed it consists to establish an inventory of the reasons which make that these simple mechanisms are not operative and can lead to imbalances.

Therefore, it’s an occultation of the essence of my theoretical model to claim (by quoting for example an extract of my writings taken out of its context) that my thesis on the instinct would be dangerous.

Such a method consisting in the occultation of a major part of the opposite speech to attack parts which can only find their sense in the whole thesis, is nothing else than intellectual dishonesty. In Alphagruis case, it could be explained by the fascination exerted on a retired physicist by the new theories like those he systematically vindicates (complex systems and Co). It could be by unconscious motions related to the concept of instinct.

To respect the language of the body represents indeed a fundamental move back from the common desire for power. It is very flattering, and usual for intellectuals who take themselves seriously, to think that one can know everything by the cerebral way. To admit that the instinct is in some cases more reliable than the mental requires a kind of modesty that many feel like an offence.

It is nevertheless clear that the needs of the body vary from a moment to the other and from an individual to another, so that any dietetic regulation cannot be relied upon. For example, the simple fact of only knowing that proteins support the muscular grow lead to force the rations of animal foodstuff without taking into account the signals sent by the body, which are the only means to limit intakes in real-time.

The instinctive nutrition consists to give back its paramount importance to the language of the body. But that doesn’t mean it should be done in just any careless way! The body is obviously adapted to an archaic environment, which one can only approach in order to avoid the main causes of distortion. It is thus necessary to take all kinds of precautions so that this language can insure its function. The empirical results show that’s possible.

A single solution remains to those whose ego can’t bear the modesty required for listening to their instinctive signals: to distort my speech and occult the results of the method, all this seasoned with aggressiveness, sarcastic remarks and insults of any kind. Let them be reassured: I’m used to it and I will only adress the relevant arguments – the kind of they have been alas unable to provide yet.

[PaleoPhil]

GCB, what if any influences did inspire you all those years ago when you came up with your ideas that people call Instincto?

[Iguana]

I didn't say I didn't eat any bug infested fallen fruits . The large Florida type avocado fallen and sitting in the sun is incredibly tasty, compared to store bought tasteless watery crap. With the jak, yes, you CAN eat it, and in fact I made off with half of a similar one. But the question is would a modern person choose a perfectly ripe fruit where all the starches had converted to sugars and not at all fermented, or a rotten mess inhabited with spider eggs? Again just because a monkey does it doesn't mean its most optimal for us OR them. No matter how you swing it they are also more suitable for digesting both starch and I assume do better with fermentation. They also seem far more attracted to those sources of "protein", which any comparison to them should make insect eggs and grubs far more enticing than even game meats we could scavenge.

About jackfruit it’s at its best for me when overripe, maybe fallen and split open by knocking the ground. If you could also attach the smell with your photos   I would be able to tell you if I’d eat it (the one on the first photo, probably not the one on the second photo  ). I was “a modern person” till 1987, and then I became a savage. Its’ an achievement I’m very proud of… even that I’m not a perfect savage though, since I still have a lot of cultural blockages, preconceived  ideas and totally irrationals degusts. Some guys became better savages than me, being able to eat a very broad range of insects, larvae and worms…  

point still that you can alter nature with perfection or distortion by artificial conditions and quantities without resorting to unnatural process like cooking especially if we are talking stopping points and the like.

Sure.

I honestly still think 88% is way too high.

I was kinda joking. How can we put a percentile to such a variable parameter?

I have no doubt that instinct can even make people seek out certain foods that they are deficient (this part is true both in nature and in people that are unwell) but not that an animal will put up any fuss in accepting whatever variation of its natural food at any moment or given choices. An experiment would have to be done wherein an animal became totally deficient upon eating the given food in which it turned it down and returned to its own resources to hunt down or acquire other wild foods. This leads me to believe that when conditions are completely in ones control, divorced from ones actual skill or prowess, that choosing small amounts of this or that (like in the case of game meats which would be unlikely), or large amounts of this or that, is dictated equally by artificial means, needs,  or desires. So even if one has a genuine signal to eat this or that, it probably isn't estimating a situation of highest health.

I’m not sure I understand your point.

I've never been in a true jungle, and maybe the places I visited were artificial precisely because they had no indigenous fruit eaters, but the unkempt/unharvested areas really were a complete rotten stinky mess. Bugs everywhere, fire ants etc...definitely not a place where you'd want to meditate all day in some garden of eden. This is not a retort against instincto, just a general observation that although fresh fruits are tastier, that some level of 'farming' and proper harvesting can also yield tastier results. The general criticism is that all store fruits are picked early and unripe, and I can say that this is definitively true, as you can not ship and sell a fruit picked at its proper level of ripeness, but intellect and maintenance in this case is also useful.

Most fruits sold in stores are uneatable for me: full of pesticides and chemicals, industrially grown with heaps of fertilizers, harvested unripe and never ripening, finally rotting...

[GCB]

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.

[KD]

About jackfruit it’s at its best for me when overripe, maybe fallen and split open by knocking the ground. If you could also attach the smell with your photos   I would be able to tell you if I’d eat it (the one on the first photo, probably not the one on the second photo  ). I was “a modern person” till 1987, and then I became a savage. Its’ an achievement I’m very proud of… even that I’m not a perfect savage though, since I still have a lot of cultural blockages, preconceived  ideas and totally irrationals degusts. Some guys became better savages than me, being able to eat a very broad range of insects, larvae and worms…  

but are you also saying we are closest to chimps? and that your desires become pure, so how is it instinctos pick foods that are less likely to be consumed by chimps or savages? They should taste/smell better, brains and liver should always taste/smell better to muscle meats unless we have over-sufficiency of those nutrients.

I've tried to give a number of examples of what I mean. What I am saying is pretty much all wild animals do not decided between foods based entirely on what is best to eat, I'm not speaking about some holy grail of health with the word 'optimal'. I've written the same thing 10 different ways and not got one single response.

I mentioned in one of my first responses about inscintos I knew that wouldn't eat from domesticated animals and therefore had to use their human resources and brain to fly in other kinds of foods, and you said that is unlikely that people ate this way, and yet the conversation has turned to exactly that the effects of purely wild non-store bought foods -that people are still not acquiring with their own resources - as being the only efficient tool to know this mechanism. how is it possible that according to you at least all of the animal kingdom is potentially food for humans, but no matter what the weight or difficulty in catching the animal, it can be totally possible that the bodies innate desire -not at all distorted by inactivity and size -would naturally in its optimal condition crave .25 lb or bison meat per day: without refrigeration, or idea that another bison would come by or be obtained so easily for the next minute portion?

In other words you talk about your instinct preventing you from eating harmful foods like grass, but you have not adequately explained how the body actually get the proper (best) ratio of nutrition either per individual or per human race by simply deciphering what is not food, which seems to be the only ability we can agree on that animals practice. The issue in question is how can you decide how much meat, fruit etc..if you are not even aquireing all within nature, and if given an abundance even an animal would not hesitate to 'jeopardize' its health and wander from this ideal ratio in such a way to eat of less quality or a less needed food that was artificial available. In other words even if the sense is clear, how do you know your requirements are not limited by the environment or being dictated by distorted sense of need or intrinsic desire for tasty foods that might be limited in availability (for instance honey).

GCB is clearly on the defense and not responding to actual points but merely criticizing or ignoring forum members based on the same bs idea that people haven't experienced this refined quality. This is not at all an argument and could be used for any idea to 'convince' without true proof from ideas as varried as immortality to Scientology. and yet no one can say why animals eat whatever food I give them that is remotely natural and even sometimes otherwise?  I see the same return on crappy birdfeed from birds, night creatures will continue to eat garbage (although the cooking here upsets their natural sense of smell). and whatever meat I dispose of there seems to disappear and even the rotten eggs and high egg I have thrown out with the compost. no one responded to the fact that animals routinely die of eating poison through natural means, and its quite easy to poison an animal with chemicals.

I myself have what seems to be innate taste and smell preferences to foods with pesticides and or fed poor diets, and yet wild or domesticated animals (which you say have that innate sense of what they are) do not. They will continue coming back for whatever food is upsetting their natural ratio as long as it is available. They might have some sense of when this eventually becomes in dangerous zones or deficiencies, but its far from what is needed to decipher what is ideal. There is no need to define what is ideal or how far all of us are from it for that to be a clear departure.

or my other examples of a Bear's natural habitat was suddenly replaced by tanks of fish and tanks of honey, or a wild boar inside of your kitchen. I guess these examples are too silly no matter how true to Mr. Burger to consider.

[goodsamaritan]

Come on guys:

REMINDER: THIS IS THE PRO-INSTINCTO SECTION

I would like to see the original spirit of the discussions in each raw paleo diet be observed.

There is a logic to why Geoff and Craig made a board section for each raw paleo variant.

We have precedents with other boards like the Primal Diet and the Raw Omnivore sections where people were asked to take their anti-Primal Diet and anti-Omnivore attacks outside of those boards.

The logic is that the Instincto forum is meant primarily for discussing the Instincto diet in a positive, constructive way and that anti-Instincto posts should be made in the Hot Topics forum

Since Iguana is the moderator in the Instincto board, let's respect his decisions to keep this board in order.

[TylerDurden]

I think fruits/sugar is addictive for a lot of people. Not wild berries/local wild fruits I think, these would be no problem, but almost ALL fruits are NOT wild.

Inger

  I do think there is a lot of genuine wild fruit around. Sure, sometimes there are hybrids  resulting from domesticated plants interbreeding with wild varieties. However, it has been claimed that domesticated plants are generally far more sickly and prone to health-problems(in effect many such domesticated plants are as heavily inbred as many farm-animals) so that they quickly die out when introduced into the wild.

[TylerDurden]

The link he has is from one young woman who has written a few papers and from my knowledge is the only person on the planet to have "proof" that neaderthals were not carnivorous. In her research, she lasered off some gunk off the back of the teeth of some neanderthals and found traces of grains iirc. This one researcher far from disproves anything since I don't think the research has been repeated by anyone else and we have no idea (and might never know) to what degree these grains were present in the diet. I, for one would like to see much more evidence than this one person, before saying anything like "completely debunked"

Here is her home page

http://home.gwu.edu/~ahenry/index.html


I'm tempted to call her and ask if shes a vegetarian.

She isn't the only one to mention evidence of plant-foods in the Neanderthal diet. There are others:-

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/neanderthals-diets/index.html


As the woman above mentions, the only reason why meat-consumption was focused on by scientists was that evidence of meat-consumption can be easily found by examining bones which easily fossilize. Plant-foods, on the other hand, do not survive at all well in the fossil record, so it's much more difficult to determine the amounts of plants eaten.

1 point raised by a particular scientist was that collagen(from which they work out what the Neanderthal diet consists of) does not survive well in warmer climes, so that it's not possible to easily determine what Neanderthals ate in warmer climes such as the Middle-East. Logically, one would have to assume that they simply ate what was available in their environment, so ate far more plant foods the nearer they got to the Equator(Neanderthals hadn't heard of concepts such as zero-carb at the time, after all).