Author Topic: Instincto Debunking Thread  (Read 47361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jacques

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #50 on: June 28, 2010, 10:59:06 am »
You won, both of you. The weight of your arguments finally got me.

Stay as you are, you are the kings of your kingdom...

By the way, how do you unsubscribe from a forum?

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2010, 11:07:05 am »

As to flying, if I were you, I would refrain from trying that. You're too heavy...
I seriously hope you are refering to my ego/stance here being 'large'?

 If you are referring to my pic, I seriously have to laugh as I'm 160 (or less) in this photo (72kg for you metrics) which is medically AT LEAST 15 lbs (~7kg) under the low end of average! which in extrapolations of cro-magnon and claims of various posters here would be infinitely smaller than our ancestors even hiding behind SWD's distortions of physique and toxic cellular build up which affects 'average' weight. Just more obvious fallacies that imply instinctos are chronically underweight and under muscled, under-active and have a major distortion when it comes to what to eat to fuel such unnatural capabilities or lack there of. For a male of average height, anything under 70 kg is underweight and much lower can be see by cursed science as pathological.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 11:16:52 am by KD »

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2010, 11:10:28 am »
Hehe - Instead of peacefully trying to make your points and give your experience so that others might have a chance to hear your story, you instinctively insta-leave?

Is this how you handle other decisions? Without thinking it through. Its ironic it aligns precisely with your instinctual eating habits.  You do realize this looks horrible for you leaving because of a very few members. It could be that the rest of the forum is supportive of you but has yet to make any presence known by way of posting.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2010, 11:14:17 am »
You won, both of you. The weight of your arguments finally got me.

Stay as you are, you are the kings of your kingdom...

By the way, how do you unsubscribe from a forum?

no one is trying to dissuade you (directly) from following instincto, This is a discussion thread to discuss points about the merits, or fallacies in instinctos claims over other methodologies. If you can't debunk the debunkers without resorting to insults and vague defenses or dodge points, than you arn't going to be taken seriously by those that are already not very impressed and your passions are better used in other threads. Other than that, I don't even see what the point of being on a discussion forum for instinctos would be other than to spread there successes or dogma, I mean theres is clearly nothing to learn from others that comes close to nature in any use or application.

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2010, 11:20:04 am »
Also I have no king, but do accept Alphagruis' black girlfriend as my queen.

Offline Jacques

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2010, 11:22:03 am »
I always ask myself 2 questions:

1- Am I having fun?

2- Do I have something to learn or gain?

When the answer is NO to both these questions, I leave...

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2010, 11:28:34 am »
I always ask myself 2 questions:

1- Am I having fun?

2- Do I have something to gain?

When the answer is NO to both these questions, I leave...
Well, your system also dictates there is absolutely nothing to gain by sharing with 'paleo-crudivores' and I guess lecturing people for being cynical idiots blinded by evidence has sort of lost its charm for you. I usually force myself to do all kinds of things I don't want to do, usually makes me learn things or get money to pay for food and things of use and actually get stronger and healthier.

Offline Jacques

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #57 on: June 28, 2010, 11:38:35 am »
It sure did, you got me cornered.

I usually force myself to do all kinds of things I don't want to do, usually makes me learn things or get money to pay for food and things of use and actually get stronger and healthier.

See, you have something to gain in forcing yourself... There's all kinds of ways to gain, pleasure is also a gain, so in fact there is only one question...


Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,785
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #58 on: June 28, 2010, 11:43:36 am »
Guys, can we tone it down a notch or two?

There are very few raw paleo dieters around the world, we need to be more welcoming to one another.

Recently I'm in contact with a fellow Filipino who is on Aajonus' Primal diet, I'm not into that, I don't eat tomatoes and I don't drink milk, but hey, there are so few of us, I don't mind.

Our differences come out as very minor from the point of view of the outsiders.  Figure it out guys.  We should form tighter bonds with one another.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2010, 11:55:24 am »

There are very few raw paleo dieters around the world, we need to be more welcoming to one another.


granted this stuff is a two way street, but nearly all of this guys 10 posts are flush with insults and derogatory remarks towards either individuals or RPD dieters in general.

its not just a question of accepting differences, basically the whole instincto mindset is a rejection of RPD, a rejection of PD, a rejection of anything practiced and learned on this forum. read the posts, its all there.

Also, PD'er generally get shafted in all cases on this site as having 0 crediblity or just labeled wrong whenever they participate in conversations.

In order to have tighter bonds, you have to have rules apply equally to everyone that qualifies under the sub-forums of this site.


alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2010, 01:52:20 pm »
Also I have no king, but do accept Alphagruis' black girlfriend as my queen.

She loves your pic, Paleo Donk  :)

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2010, 02:29:18 pm »
Guys, can we tone it down a notch or two?

There are very few raw paleo dieters around the world, we need to be more welcoming to one another.

Recently I'm in contact with a fellow Filipino who is on Aajonus' Primal diet, I'm not into that, I don't eat tomatoes and I don't drink milk, but hey, there are so few of us, I don't mind.

Our differences come out as very minor from the point of view of the outsiders.  Figure it out guys.  We should form tighter bonds with one another.

GS,

Jacques is apparently just a troll, not even a raw paleo dieter or instincto with any serious experience to share.

His posts are of that kind of garbage from a scientific point of view, I hardly ever met before.

They are obviously just intented to confuse this thread.

Yet unlike the pro-instincto thread, no posts are deleted here. Jacques ones are so ridiculous that it's worth to keep them as textbook examples of pseudoscientific garbage. 



 

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2010, 04:24:19 pm »
It is possible that your former veganism was an intellectual barrier that prevented you to feel attracted to foods of animal origin.
Oh, doesn´t that sound very "burgerly", like something Burger has told you ;) and as if you still would believe in the perfect instinct only disturbed by this wicked intellect? ;) But you could be right.

"Instinct" is perhaps an outdated and certainly not clearly defined concept. Without having read all the posts in this thread - could THIS be the problem? I think that intuition is far more crucial than the alliesthetic signals; in my view alliesthetic signals are only a kind/type of emergency break.

Instinkt ist vielleicht ein veraltetes, mit Sicherheit aber kein klar definiertes Konzept. Könnte dies das Problem sein? Ich denke, dass die intuitiven Signale viel entscheidender für die Regulierung des Essverhaltens als die alliästhetischen Signale sind. Die alliästhetischen Signale scheinen mir nur eine Art von Notbremse zu sein. Gcb, was meinen Sie dazu?

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2010, 08:26:41 pm »
Oh, doesn´t that sound very "burgerly", like something Burger has told you ;) and as if you still would believe in the perfect instinct only disturbed by this wicked intellect? ;) But you could be right.

"Instinct" is perhaps an outdated and certainly not clearly defined concept. Without having read all the posts in this thread - could THIS be the problem? I think that intuition is far more crucial than the alliesthetic signals; in my view alliesthetic signals are only a kind/type of emergency break.

Instinkt ist vielleicht ein veraltetes, mit Sicherheit aber kein klar definiertes Konzept. Könnte dies das Problem sein? Ich denke, dass die intuitiven Signale viel entscheidender für die Regulierung des Essverhaltens als die alliästhetischen Signale sind. Die alliästhetischen Signale scheinen mir nur eine Art von Notbremse zu sein. Gcb, was meinen Sie dazu?

Maybe you won't believe it, Hanna, but I wrote my remark and expected that you would retort in such a way as an instincto....  

As I already mentioned repeatedly I agree with a lot of things Burger told us :)

But please notice also that someone may be right on one thing and utterly wrong on another and this is actually the rule.

More specifically here, my remark sounds "burgerly" in your mind because of your instincto history. Yet the relevant phenomenon I mentioned is very well known since decades and nicely demonstrated by hundreths of papers. In general the response to a given stimulation of one of our senses depends strongly on our recent and even remote past history and in particular on training, learning by trial and error, various activities etc, in short it depends on essentially everything one might imagine both expected and by essence unexpected previous events of life in a definitely very complex and intertwinned way.

In other words this means that the hedonic character (attraction, repulsion...) of a food odour for instance in by no means just a matter of present state and supposed "needs in nutriments" of our organism. BTW note that this reality by itself actually definitely falsifies the instincto dogma.

From a theoretical point of view the "instinct" concept is indeed not clearly defined and many people put actually different things in it. What complex system theory even tells us now is that it actually cannot be defined seriously in any way because of a fondamental epistemologic barrier. I know that this is disturbing but I'm too busy now to dwell into this here, sorry.  

In practice this means that Burger's program to "find out the conditions that permits a hypothetical perfect instinct to work properly" is definitely vain, unfortunately. These conditions cannot be worked out for epistemologic reasons.

Healthy eating has to be learned and is unfortunately not instinctive. I contend the idea (in a French forum) that what you call intuition (and others erroneously instinct) is actually the result of a learned unconscious behaviour (normally at weaning or in our case later on by memorizing our first experiences with different solid foods replacing either mother's milk or SAD  foods)  that lets us know before any contact with any food what food might be appropriate when we're hungry and then look for it with relevant but pertinent energy expenditure as in the wild rather than the absurd gathering of various foods and supposedly select one of them by smell and taste.  

I suggest you read the posts I wrote here and in the pro-instincto thread about instincto dogma and in particular about the role of for instance environmental constraints among many other factors besides alliesthesy in the emergence of nutritional balance or health in nature.

Also maybe in French (sorry) forums

http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5540
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/4996
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5791
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5802

http://paleocru.webatu.com/forum/index.php/topic,39.0.html
    

  

    
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 08:34:12 pm by alphagruis »

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #64 on: June 28, 2010, 10:23:55 pm »
Hello all,

I'm a new guy on this forum. I know and am interested in Instinctotherapy and Palaeolithic diet since my stay in Montramé in the early '90s. Since English is not my mother tongue, I will ask you guys for some leeway.

...

I will come back with my own experience in future posts.

    Welcome new member :)  Where is Montramé?  I like what you say about intelligence.  Sometimes people conceptualize so much, but it has such a hard time approaching the beauty of the innate intelligence in natural systems.  I like abstract concepts etc but concepts and nature are different and may not be the most efficient way to get from one to the other.

    I think this is my first addition to this thread.  I don't know enough about Instincto Therapy to want to debunk it.  I've kind of lived it I guess, in the past, but did so with no animal foods (nor animal clothes etc). 
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline Jacques

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2010, 11:16:28 pm »
If I was particularly on your case, alphagruis, there was a reason for it.

You are very bad mannered and this trait of character of yours has the ability to migrate to others, so doing, putting an end to sensible conversation. Though, the funny thing is that your first posts on either forums (French and English) are intelligent and sensible. But for some reason, whenever someone does not blissfully agree with you, and contrary to GCB, you get contemptuous and often insulting. Being sarcastic with people (or something in that line of thought) never has a good effect on the level of conversation.  

As a scientist you have a pedagogical responsibility. If you don't want to assume it, I'm pretty sure you have better things to do.

I clumsily tried to tone you down by mixing my experience with texts and contradictions I get from your posts... That was a bad idea, badly expressed. I will try to find the time to express it in a better and clearer way, in the near future.

Nevertheless, GCB may be wrong when he's talking about instinct, which would also imply that I also am. But I certainly am of good faith and true to my experience. The matter of fact is I read and will continue the suggested readings you posted. So far, I find them very interesting, but nothing in those contradicts the possible existence of other dynamic mechanisms.

But please notice also that someone may be right on one thing and utterly wrong on another and this is actually the rule.
  

This could also apply to you...
« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 12:00:29 am by Jacques »

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2010, 02:33:08 am »
I contend the idea (in a French forum) that what you call intuition (and others erroneously instinct) is actually the result of a learned unconscious behaviour
    

In my case, the instinctive stop signals are often very subtle. If I wait for clear stop signals I not rarely eat too much. If I respect (listen to) kind of intuitive signals, I stop eating while or before these subtle signals manifest. Yes, I suspect, that these signals can be influenced by learning. Doesn´t gcb think the same?

>>What complex system theory even tells us now is that it actually cannot be defined seriously in any way because of a fondamental epistemologic barrier. I know that this is disturbing but I'm too busy now to dwell into this here, sorry.

If you want to explain this some day, I am interested.
I don´t speak french.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 04:55:48 am by Hanna »

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2010, 11:02:27 pm »
In my case, the instinctive stop signals are often very subtle. If I wait for clear stop signals I not rarely eat too much. If I respect (listen to) kind of intuitive signals, I stop eating while or before these subtle signals manifest. Yes, I suspect, that these signals can be influenced by learning. Doesn´t gcb think the same?

The point is precisely that the "instinctive" stop signals do not merely "delicately regulate food intake" and actually don't have to as Burger assumes and as one might expect if something like a perfect "instinct" was to exist . I have already told about this repeatedly before. They just do not need to and Burger's reasoning as to this fine tuned delicate regulation supposedly being true as a simple consequence of Darwin's natural selection is wrong. Not every feature of an organism needs and moreover has to be optimized in this way. Food intake regulation is much more subtle and includes in particular major environmental constraints

Roughly speaking "stop signals" in case of sweet or fatty foods occur to late (alreading to much ingested). The reverse is true for veggies. What in nature regulated intake in this case was the limited respectively virtual unlimited alvailability of the respective foods in interplay with the strong respectively weak inbuild or "innate" attraction towards such foods. And this regulation does not take place instantly day after day but just over a whole one year period.

Hence we cannot merely listen to alliethesy signals but have to correct them with our mind and how to do this is what has to be learned. In other words we have to force ourselves to limit sweet fruit intake. (By the way while it is true that attraction and repulsion are influenced by learning there is absolutely no evidence that learning makes the so called "stop signal" (a vague concept by the way) to occur earlier with sweet or later with veggies so as to ensure nutritional balance, as you seem to suggest)

 
   
  >>What complex system theory even tells us now is that it actually cannot be defined seriously in any way because of a fondamental epistemologic barrier. I know that this is disturbing but I'm too busy now to dwell into this here, sorry.

If you want to explain this some day, I am interested.
I don´t speak french.

A difficult task. I suggest that meanwhile you try to grasp what's in concepts like emergence and self-organization

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #68 on: July 02, 2010, 06:34:06 pm »

Roughly speaking "stop signals" in case of sweet or fatty foods occur to late (alreading to much ingested). The reverse is true for veggies. What in nature regulated intake in this case was the limited respectively virtual unlimited alvailability of the respective foods in interplay with the strong respectively weak inbuild or "innate" attraction towards such foods. And this regulation does not take place instantly day after day but just over a whole one year period.


A further problem with veggies could be that we are genetically partially adapted to cooked food and therefore (1) can´t eat or ("instinctively") avoid eating larger quantities of antinutrients (which are eliminated by cooking) and (2) depend on easily digestible food, with the result that we are not strongly attracted by many raw veggies, especially if they are wild (not cultured).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2010, 07:36:06 pm by Hanna »

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #69 on: July 02, 2010, 07:38:04 pm »

A further problem with veggies could be that we are partially adapted to cooked food and therefore (1) can´t eat larger quantities of antinutrients (which are eliminated by cooking) and (2) depend on easily digestible food, with the result that we are not strongly attracted by many raw veggies, especially if they are wild (not cultured).


Yes I agree. During our evolutionary path humans unlike gorillas or ruminants managed (big brain) to get at a good deal of food of animal origin that usually does not contain antinutrients since animals are mobile and have developed other strategies to not be eaten by predators.

BTW, it is also important to realise that it is definitely not a good approach to view us or other animals as "designed" by some mysterious entity or engineer (be it a god or the natural selection or anything else) to thrive and be in optimal health in a natural paradise. Natural order is always the result of some trade off. Plants (except in fruits) must synthetize defense chemicals that prevent their predators to wipe them out of the planet and plant predators must detect these chemicals (bitterness) and cope with or metabolize a limited amount of them. And there is a perpetual struggle in this respect. If predators became able to metabolize too much defense chemicals the relevant plants would disappear. If the predator could'nt eat any plant at all he was going to die out too. Hence in a healthy balanced sustainable ecosystem plant eating predators necessarily can only eat the relevant plants in a limited quantity. Yet there is no reason that in the case of man, an omnivore species, this phenomenon interpreted in instincto dogma as the existence of an "instinctive stop" is even remotely optimized in terms of our own health or interests.      
« Last Edit: July 02, 2010, 07:52:11 pm by alphagruis »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #70 on: July 03, 2010, 03:59:40 pm »
Well, the above re KD's claim is obviously wrong. Rawpalaeo agrees with Instincto on numerous levels. There's the anti-raw/ anti-non-palaeo aspect(not even Primal Diet is right re the latter part). Instincto claims that non-raw/non-palaeo foods create unnatural cravings - also backed up by rawpalaeo doctrine plus various scientific studies describing addictive opioids in dairy/grains/cooked foods. Instinctos claim that raw wild game is superior to raw grassfed/domesticated meats, that processing such as juicing veg was a bad idea, healthwise etc.. So Burger got it right far more often than Aajonus ever did. Now, like any human, he cannot possibly be 100% right/perfect but one should acknowledge that he got most of it right re diet.

As for the instinct aspect, my instincts led me to go rawpalaeo as, in my raw vegan days, I got huge unnatural cravings for sweet fruits(due to nutrient deficiencies no doubt) which were destroying my life and I couldn't handle any cooked animal foods at the time re digestion - so I instinctively chose raw meats(plus some raw plants) as the sole option left to me.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #71 on: July 03, 2010, 04:27:11 pm »

ok I'm distorting your views yet you dedicated paragraphs to saying the same things basically that people cannot rivial raw palelos without use of artificial drugs and if they do that they are lieing? This was the worst post thus far and well illustrates my point.

I simply said that most current professional athletes use drugs/steroids so that that aspect definitely contributes partially to their sporting success. That's a simple fact, due to the excess competition in current times. Palaeos did not have access to such drugs, yet showed bone-structure etc. at least as good as those of modern athletes.

Quote
not only can you not accept being wrong on this, you can't accept anyone has positive results cooking foods, using dairy etc...and have to basically come up with tons of inplausible reasons why everyone should fail dong things you don't agree with. Because he cooks he must have all these health problems and therefore he is not to be trusted even though there is a long list of people who have met the guy in person and seen in action. You have tremendous logic issues going on here and elsewhere which are quite visible in that link , the 'how big?' thread, and here without any writing I could supply to distort it. you have mentioned average palos had more strength than any possible training we can come up with in modern times. and that modern training provides poor functional strength. You are wrong and the experts you posted say you are wrong. Anyone can read the comment about the pygmy in reference to being 120 lbs and see a straw reaching contest.
It is quite clear from the above that you are hopelessly biased on this issue. First of all, I have actually stated, in the past, that some people are better adapted towards raw dairy or cooked foods, so that is a definite example of terminological inexactitude. Secondly, the main point I was making is that 100s of other gurus, diet-oriented or otherwise, show similiar physically enhanced bodies and beautiful photos, all of whom practise widely different diets. To suggest , based on a vague(most likely photoshopped)photo that someone must be following a perfect diet is just a perfect example of gullibility. Similiarly, Schwarzenegger looked great in his time, but then he developed heart-trouble etc., later on, as a result of steroids. So, basing one's views on photos when there are 1000s of similiar photos of gurus just like that , is ridiculous. As for the long list of people, so have many others met other gurus like Cordain or Dr Atkins, argument invalid as they can't determine steroids used in privacy etc.

And the palaeo evidence re bones/fossils shows beyond doubt that they had an advantage over us re physical exercise.  Yes, some modern athletes might use specific weights to enhance 1 particular muscle better than palaeos etc., but that still doesn't get round the fact that palaeos had superior functional strength. And, I say once again, functional strength is not the same as vague "general" strength, in the muscle-bound, modern weightlifter-sense.

Quote
as I already mentioned the point of showing the juxtaposition was not that one person was healthier based on how they looked (it included information as well), it was that a range of actual practiced habits can yield better results than natural theories even if they seem more sound scientifically and anthropologically. Of course 9/10 we are deciding this science and anthropology as amateurs on this forum, so some guys like deVany might manage to get their versions to work even better despite our best arguments and 'proof' - no cheating required. It wasn't a comparison of whos internal organs are healthier due to cooking or processing, only how people held up at higher ages. Which was totally acceptable in other threads comparison to other 'veg' gurus...
Artificial, unnatural methods, whether in the form of steroids or anything else, by definition, exact a penalty later on(steroids for example damage testes etc.). It makes far better sense to try natural methods which have no nasty side-effects in the future. Besides, muscles were designed by evolution to be used in natural ways. So, the closer we imitate evolutionary designs the better off we are.

Also, photos are useless for determining how fast people age, as not only aspects like AGEs in foods are important, but also peoples' individual genetics/lifestyles etc. - all of which mean that photos cannot be considered remotely reliable .
Quote
your double standard is always using conveniences or confusion against things that present conflicting successful arguments. If you had a photo of a caveman lifting a car like our current strongmen you would probably plaster it all over the site. Just like that article that blew up in terms of proving modern training poor when in reality it was all the genetic and nutritional things we can all agree on. When it doubt throw some completely unprovable monkey wrench into any well argued point.

Quote
the idea that all photos arn't reliable as information is just nonsense, this coming from someone who actually said things like "well I've heard reports on (from RPD message boards? from uncle charlie?) of instintos looking healthier than primal dieters at American potlucks" and actually mean it seriously as an argument.
That's just childish as usual - besides, it's foolish  to assume that any particular photo is a valid example, as there are 100s of other gurus with similiar physiques - in other words, if you honestly believe DeVany on the strength of that photo, then, to be consistent, you must believe in every other guru that has similiar photos with great physiques. Now that's just gullible as hell.

. As for that, I merely made that comment as I'm familiar with that person in the past years and he was least likely of all people to make outlandish comments, given his past. More to the point, I have  frequently come across Primal Dieters with severe health-problems from raw dairy etc., and my own experience re primal diets(and instinctoish phases re raw high fruit/low meat diets), so all that is all in full agreement with the claim.

"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #72 on: July 03, 2010, 09:22:49 pm »
RPD as defined on this board as a tool for contemporary health cannot be in line with instincto philosophy which almost by definition is 100% 'how the world works' making all other methodologies of eating wrong or at the very least inferior. Similar to hygiene philosophy it defies all known therapies, and all knowledge one could glean from studying others or sharing information. Nevermind the fact that it also cannot stand up to basic criticism referencing the habits of wild animals or the fact that modern instinctos even can reject basic food sources known to have the highest nutrition. Even by the gurus standards from tropical fruits to insects to various organ meats and blood and choose preferences of taste that have nothing to do with nutrition..

obviously people here eat according to some instinctual fell towards foods, the issues is whther they can follow their instincts to create ideal ratios of health for them or if other means and knowledge can improve health.

The bias is quite reverse, you cannot even see all the factual errors and misinterpretations here which I have already clarified. I actually worked from one of the top fashion magazines in the world, I'm very knowledgeable about what can be done with photos. I never said photos were signs that someone was healthy, I just merely posted a photo of someone and you drew a bunch of conclusion because you obviously have hang-ups about your own issues. I already mentioned people could do their own research from there and check out the guys videos (which cannot be photo-shopped and only enhanced by makeup and not what is known in the photo business as 'shaping' or essentially form changing) and interact with him in person. on some level if someone is following a natural diet, their outward appearance - especially in age - is an indicator to be considered. The very fact that you are defending that remark about how people appear at potlucks - that you didn't even experience first hand - is what proves the double standard. If that needs to be spelled out, you are judging peoples health by how someone else perceived them, and not even acknowledging what their previous health situations were in exactly how you are claiming younger bodybuilders looked well presumably only when their natural advantages were working for them.


Since you seem to still after 3-4 topics and countless back and forth just group again ALL strength training in terms of isolated barbel curls in the mirror, and not conceded a single point (except backtracking here with saying paleo man could possibly equal modern athletes) I feel no need to further engage with you on this issue. Enjoy your vacation and send back tons of photos!

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #73 on: July 04, 2010, 08:28:09 pm »
I wonder where humans sense of smell ranks for mammals, primates? I would assume humans evolved in a manner that their sense of smell greatly diminished in place so other higher functioning (pattern recognition, ability to read, etc..) mechanisms could develop.

60% of olfactory receptor genes are pseudogenes in humans as compared to 30 and 20% in other primates and mice respectively. This indeed means that mice have roughly twice the number of active olfactory receptors as we have. This diminished sense of smell seems to correlate with the acquisition of trichromatic vision and later on development of our big brain during our evolutionary path with more and more olfactory receptor genes becoming non functional as other capabilities were acquired.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020033

I still wonder how eating instincto in the wild, where it needs to take place for it to be taken seriously, would change the intake of the diet. Perhaps raw zero carb would rule in the wild. And in the wild you may adhere to your other instinctive practices which also must necessarily be adhered to so that the diet part is maximized. Like defecating instinctively, being naked, masturbating, etc...

I think that what ruled the food intake was its availability. In Nature there are rarely several different foods available simultaneously at the same spot. Even once we became hunters there was usually one kill of one species by the end of the day, when successful. In other words there is usually nothing to select by smell among several or better many available meats, fishs etc as assumed in instincto dogma. We had to either eat the only food available or nothing.

The instincto practice of selecting food by smell has little to do with how things work in nature. It's a sheer fad of civilized man.
  

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,785
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #74 on: July 04, 2010, 09:22:08 pm »
The instincto practice of selecting food by smell has little to do with how things work in nature. It's a sheer fad of civilized man.

Somehow, Burger healed his own cancer by turning raw at the beginning.  So he must have done something right.  Do you have the details on that?
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk