Author Topic: Instincto Debunking Thread  (Read 47358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #75 on: July 04, 2010, 10:33:15 pm »
I agree, GS

Burger has worked out the RAW PALEO concept more than 40 years ago and applied it to himself to recover from a deadly larynx cancer. Mainstream medicine and treatments left him little chances of long term survival and this is what made him to question the pertinence of standard diet and look in a rational way for a more appropriate one. Other concepts such as his theory of useful viruses or bacteria are also very remarkable.

As I said before, this part of his work is by itself a most remarkable feat. The problem is with his "theory" about "instincts".

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #76 on: July 06, 2010, 06:47:31 am »

By the way, the guru now tries to wrap his crap about his supposed "alimentary instinct that results in perfectly balanced diet" into (unfortunately misunderstood) complex systems science language since I told him about it, rather than the old fashioned (also misunderstood) neodarwinist terms in his former version.
The trouble is that the concepts of instinct and emergence are mutually exclusive too.  
This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.


Dear Alphagruis,

Since you have all the space for you on this thread, and obviously a lot of time to write numerous posts, could you please explain us exactly how the theories of self-organized complex systems and in particular the concept of emergence exclude the notion of Instinct?

I hope this time you would not evade the issue and will succeed in giving a logical and relevant explanation - understandable by those you call in French "les ignares". For, as far as I know, all your previous explanations failed to convince anyone, just as your regular reluctance to “repeat what already said”. To reiterate over and over again incomprehensible explanations could evidently not push the debate forward.

As a matter of fact, I am facing the following dilemma: either I have an IQ much inferior than yours and I’m therefore unable to follow you, or your explanations are truly impenetrable. In both cases, the solution would be to write, this time, something graspable to everyone.

So, please, take the trouble to explain your arguments in a sufficiently clear and comprehensive (and polite -X) manner, so that common mortals could catch it. In case you don’t, I’d be forced to admit that your beliefs aren’t verbalisable, which would be unfortunate for a professional scientist.

G-C Burger


To all : As I am since long ago registered on the red, or black, or even infra-red list of Alphagruis, could another contributor craving to understand something repeat the same request in case mine does not actually receive response?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 07:09:01 am by GCB »

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #77 on: July 06, 2010, 10:59:07 am »
For, as far as I know, all your previous explanations failed to convince anyone, just as your regular reluctance to “repeat what already said”. To reiterate over and over again incomprehensible explanations could evidently not push the debate forward.

Did you all want us to jump in and say yes we agree with Alphagruis? His explanations this last week were quit remarkable to me (though I did not comment on them, but am now) and further pushed me away from instincto. And to assume that since nobody voluntarily made their approval of his remarks known in thread meant that his remarks were "impenetrable" seems to me like an excuse as to not address his remarks or at least concede some points at some level.

Another issue I have with instincto is that say we have one person who is on a ketogenic diet (very high fat low protein, token amounts of carbs). Their body would be burning fat very efficiently and many people have reported that they crave fat when following such a diet. I noticed this as well when I was high fat. Would someone following a ketogenic diet ever have their instincts take over so that it reverses to a very high vegetation diet like the optimal instincto diet you touched on.

I think the initial conditions for starting instincto will lead you to the extremes, either very high fat or very high carb intake, the latter of which you have found yourself in. This actually makes so much sense to me now - its just a simple problem of gravitating to a diet which your body will feel the need to get the most energy from. The tipping point is just very heavily in favor of carbohydrate consumption as we are very much addicted to sweet fruits. Say as a guess that all diets with initial carb intake of 10% or more will lead to an instincto diet with your very high vegetation diet and diets less than 10% carbs will lead to an instincto diet with very high fat consumption. 

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #78 on: July 06, 2010, 11:25:59 am »
I totally agree, I find all of alphagruis' posts to be very easily readable (especially for a non-english native) and fairly unbiased dissections of blatant contradictions. The fact that there is some sarcasm and personal jabs here in there is typical and has been present on all sides in these arguments. As pointed out (by alpha and others), extremely complex statements that err on the side of instincto never seem to be confusing.

let it be noted, I chopped all my criticisms into fortune cookie fragments, and still never got a response despite the (edited) call to clarify, yet talken walnuten en Deutsche was apparently top priority.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg38617/#msg38617

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #79 on: July 06, 2010, 05:14:40 pm »
Hi kd!

Sorry that I wrote some posts not only in English, but also in German. Gcb wrote that he perhaps will understand me better if I write my posts in both languages. It was discourteous on my part to write one post only in German. Gcb wrote in German that he is busy during the next days and that he will answer later on. Perhaps he forgot to write this in English too.

>>talken walnuten en Deutsche

That sounds funny but I´m not sure that I understand. Could you please translate this for me or say it in other words?  

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #80 on: July 06, 2010, 06:54:51 pm »
KD, PaleoDonk,

Burger obviously just feigns to not understand neither your criticisms nor mine nor the ones of anybody else. Because he cannot retort to or argue against them. Nothing's new in this respect. He behaved similarly on the French forum, diverting systematically the discussion to not address the points put forward by his interlocutors . He is used to this perverse strategy which is a typical feature of this and other gurus.

Ridiculous behaviour (he seems to be the only one who doesn't "understand" except of course his rare remaining followers such as Iguana  ;D ) and sheer hypocrisy that already put an end to my "scientific" debate with him since long.

The criticisms I had in mind above do of course by no means need any knowledge of complex systems science.  Everybody can understand them. This is even so true that many features of them were arrived at by an ex-instincto named Jean-Claude Catry several years before me and a series of discussions with him helped me tremendously in clarifying what's wrong with instincto. Jean-Claude is certainly not a scientist with a background in complex systems science. He is a French rawfoodist who settled on Saltspring, a small island in Canadian waters off Vancouver, and there learned a lot about the former culture and way of life of natives and what might helped them to stay in much better health than civilized man. As far as I'm concerned I'm just a scientist who happened to be in a position to later on acknowledge that instincto dogma failure finds actually a very nice explanation in terms of recently developed complex systems theory.

BTW thanks Jean Claude, I learned a lot from you. 

 

 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 11:30:33 pm by alphagruis »

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #81 on: July 06, 2010, 10:50:50 pm »
Did you all want us to jump in and say yes we agree with Alphagruis? His explanations this last week were quit remarkable to me (though I did not comment on them, but am now) and further pushed me away from instincto. And to assume that since nobody voluntarily made their approval of his remarks known in thread meant that his remarks were "impenetrable" seems to me like an excuse as to not address his remarks or at least concede some points at some level.

I totally agree, I find all of alphagruis' posts to be very easily readable (especially for a non-english native) and fairly unbiased dissections of blatant contradictions. The fact that there is some sarcasm and personal jabs here in there is typical and has been present on all sides in these arguments. As pointed out (by alpha and others), extremely complex statements that err on the side of instincto never seem to be confusing.

Of course, I did not speak of Alphagruis recent posts which I find, as you do, perfectly clear and logical (the constant insults aside). My request concerns the fundamentals of Alphagruis argument, that is to say the demonstration which would show evidence that the concept of instinct is incompatible with the theories of self-organized complex systems and in particular the concept of emergence. 

Since just about everything Alphagruis writes is inferred from this principle and since his conclusions do not fit my actual observations, it is imperative to review more closely the virtues of the starting point.

Please excuse also my difficulty in answering you, but my responses are conditioned by the above question to Alphagruis. I will answer when given a clear explanation about the inconsistency he declares to see between the theories of complex systems and the concept of instinct. This will include a clearer definition of this concept, which is central to most of your questions and objections.

Burger obviously just feigns to not understand neither your criticisms nor mine nor the ones of anybody else. Because he cannot retort to or argue against them. Nothing's new in this respect. He behaved similarly on the French forum, diverting systematically the discussion to not addess the points put forward by his interlocutors . He is used to this perverse strategy which is a typical feature of this and other gurus.
Ridiculous behaviour (he seems to be the only one who doesn't "understand" except of course his rare remaining followers such as Iguana and sheer hypocrisy that already put an end to my "scientific" debate with him since long.   

Alphagruis: my request is sincere, I’m trying to understand your point of view and I only find arguments going in the opposite direction. It is therefore logical to consider the starting point of your arguments for us to agree on the follow-up. I’m still waiting for your reply.


alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #82 on: July 06, 2010, 11:50:49 pm »

Alphagruis: my request is sincere


Sure Burger, sure.

Obviously you are sincere  ;D

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2010, 12:57:00 am »

Yes, I'm indeed sincere and I still wait for your explanations :P. If you are unable to provide any, it’s either that your standpoint is baseless or you are yourself deceitful.


alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #84 on: July 07, 2010, 01:48:23 am »
If you are unable to provide any, it’s either that your standpoint is baseless or you are yourself deceitful.

Error of reasoning Burger :o

If I'm unable to provide any it may also be that it's for instance because I've eaten too much sauerkraut or butter today.

And as I eat huge amounts of them every day....  ;D

Offline GCB

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #85 on: July 07, 2010, 05:01:41 am »
Please accept my condolences... :'(
As soon as your brain will come back to a normal functioning (criterion = -v lower insult output), I'm sure you'll be able  >D to give me the much-awaited explanations...

I hope, I'll learn a lot from you.

Thanking you in advance ! 8)

« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:12:37 am by GCB »

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #86 on: July 07, 2010, 02:02:17 pm »
Maybe an example could help to understand? Take our supposed adaptation to fruit. One could argue that not the primates adapted to the fruits, but that the fruits adapted to the primates (or more general to animals) because the fruits "want" their seeds to be spread by animals. One could argue that fruits and animals adapted to each other. Possibly not (only) an instinct leads us to fruits but (also) the fruits developed characteristics that are perceived by certain animals as attractive (pleasant smell, flavor, colour). Could this be an example of why the concept of instinct is critizised by you, alphagruis? BTW, an adaptation of fruits to us and to our preferences could be a further reason why fruits have a more prominent and a more pleasant fragrance for us than veggies usually have. The concept of "instinct" cannot explain this difference: Both, fruits and veggies, are needed by us and both are healthy for us (at least according to instincto); nevertheless fruits are more attractive to us regarding smell, flavour and colour.

(Is my English understandable?)

Man könnte argumentieren, dass nicht die Primaten sich an die Früchte anpassten, sondern dass die Früchte sich an die Primaten oder, allgemeiner, an die Tiere anpassten, da die Früchte ein "Interesse" daran haben, dass ihre Samen durch die Tiere verbreitet werden. Man könnte also argumentieren, dass Früchte und Tiere sich einander angepasst haben. Möglicherweise führt nicht (nur) ein Instinkt uns zu den Früchten, sondern die Früchte entwickelten (darüber hinaus) Merkmale, die von bestimmten Tieren als anziehend wahrgenommen werden (angenehmer Duft, köstlicher Geschmack, Farben). Dass die Früchte sich an uns und unsere Vorlieben anpassten, könnte auch einer der Gründe dafür sein, weswegen Früchte einen auffallenderen und köstlicheren Duft für uns haben, als Gemüse ihn normalerweise haben. Das Konzept des Instinktes kann diesen Unterschied nicht erklären: Gemäß Instincto benötigen wir sowohl Früchte als auch Gemüse, Grüngemüse inklusive, und beides ist gesund für uns. Dennoch ist die Anziehung, die Früchte mittels Geruch und Geschmack auf uns ausüben, weit stärker.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #87 on: July 07, 2010, 04:56:22 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..


The point I made re palaeoman being at least equal to or better, performance-wise than modern athletes, is not contested by the vast majority of palaeoanthrologists, whether in the form of John Shea or Loren Cordain etc. That was my main point and pretty pointless  to even dispute, given the favourable response by such palaeo-oriented scientists.

As for Instincto, it is perfectly in line with rawpalaeo ideas-beliefs re going back to nature, more natural methods, rawpalaeo foods etc. As for the issue of instinct/taste, I partially agree with it. That is, from my own experience, I've been drawn to eat healthier foods like raw wild game, with instincts that clearly feel somewhat different from the unnatural, addictive cravings I have sometimes had for specific cooked/processed foods. I think if one was in the wild, an instincto lifestyle would probably work, as even if one developed an instinctive too great a liking for sweet fruits, say, the environment could not provide enough such sweet fruits for a consistent diet extremely high in sweet fruits, in the long-term, so that one would anyway be eating a more natural diet.

Re the photos, I am stating this also as part of my own experience. Photos of me prior to this diet gave a false impression of joyfulness and therefore seemingly good health despite my being in great pain at the time, whereas photos of me a bit into rawpalaeo (a few months or a year into the diet) show  me quite a bit worse off in some cases re looking a bit miserable, despite my feeling a hell of a lot better than before at the time. Same goes when seeing other people in person even. For example, it's known that fat women can look younger due to the fat obscuring wrinkles. And then there's botox  etc. etc. So, it's not merely a question of photos/photoshopping but appearances in general being far too superficial to be relied upon. Ultimately, every single rawpalaeo beginner should solely be concerned with "how is this diet affecting me?" rather than relying on others' good looks or individual genetics(genes do seem to affect longevity/aging to some extent) as a basis to judge a diet.


As for providing my own photos of my recent holiday, that would be dishonest as that would imply that I always looked like that all year round. Being in the outdoors and highly active like this would naturally make me look a little too good and I wouldn't want someone to be influenced that way.
"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.

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #88 on: July 07, 2010, 05:52:34 pm »
Maybe an example could help to understand? Take our supposed adaptation to fruit. One could argue that not the primates adapted to the fruits, but that the fruits adapted to the primates (or more general to animals) because the fruits "want" their seeds to be spread by animals. One could argue that fruits and animals adapted to each other. Possibly not (only) an instinct leads us to fruits but (also) the fruits developed characteristics that are perceived by certain animals as attractive (pleasant smell, flavor, colour). Could this be an example of why the concept of instinct is critizised by you, alphagruis? BTW, an adaptation of fruits to us and to our preferences could be a further reason why fruits have a more prominent and a more pleasant fragrance for us than veggies usually have. The concept of "instinct" cannot explain this difference: Both, fruits and veggies, are needed by us and both are healthy for us (at least according to instincto); nevertheless fruits are more attractive to us regarding smell, flavour and colour.


Yes I agree absolutely, Hanna. This is one nice example of what I meant when I recalled that, contrary to Burger's assumptions, it is wrong to believe that nature does optimize (or has to optimize) something like an innate capability or instinct to balance our diet. Many plants have developped  attractive fruits by means of flavors (first of all sweetness) and odors because it much better ensures the spread of their seeds in contrast to the other parts of their organism which they have to prevent from being eaten by synthesizing bitter toxic chemicals. We have to cope with this and it was usually not a problem because of (among other effects)  former environmental constraints that prevented us to be fooled by the plant fruits attraction all year round (impossible to gorge on them over a prolonged period) and thus we were forced to get at other food sources such as veggies or also and better learn to hunt or fish and thus get by force or "self-organization of the whole ecosystem" an overall more appropriate diet. All this and many other subtle interactions "conspired" to ensure health of all components of a healthy natural ecosystem and made it precisely a sustainable self-organized complex system. Health or nutritional regulation is an example what we call in complex systems theory an emergent property that cannot by nature be reduced to the properties of any of its components.  No need to invoke something as an "instinct". It's even absolutely vain epistemologically.
    

« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:58:53 pm by alphagruis »

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #89 on: July 07, 2010, 06:07:31 pm »
Please accept my condolences... :'(
As soon as your brain will come back to a normal functioning (criterion = -v lower insult output), I'm sure you'll be able  >D to give me the much-awaited explanations...

I hope, I'll learn a lot from you.

Thanking you in advance ! 8)



Be patient Burger, I'll possibly teach you ...

a lot more in my own ways  ;D

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #90 on: July 08, 2010, 01:41:54 pm »
Yes I agree absolutely, Hanna. This is one nice example of what I meant when I recalled that, contrary to Burger's assumptions, it is wrong to believe that nature does optimize (or has to optimize) something like an innate capability or instinct to balance our diet. Many plants have developped  attractive fruits by means of flavors (first of all sweetness) and odors because it much better ensures the spread of their seeds in contrast to the other parts of their organism which they have to prevent from being eaten by synthesizing bitter toxic chemicals. We have to cope with this and it was usually not a problem because of (among other effects) former environmental constraints that prevented us to be fooled by the plant fruits attraction all year round (impossible to gorge on them over a prolonged period) and thus we were forced to get at other food sources such as veggies or also and better learn to hunt or fish and thus get by force or "self-organization of the whole ecosystem" an overall more appropriate diet. All this and many other subtle interactions "conspired" to ensure health of all components of a healthy natural ecosystem and made it precisely a sustainable self-organized complex system. Health or nutritional regulation is an example what we call in complex systems theory an emergent property that cannot by nature be reduced to the properties of any of its components. No need to invoke something as an "instinct". It's even absolutely vain epistemologically.

It seems to me this argument has already been answered, at least partially:

Here is a concrete fact: three months of wild mangos in the Philippines. Here in France, about 3 months of figs, in the rainforest of Borneo several months of wild cempedak or wild durian and so on.
These fruits and many others thus do not appear just the time for someone to barely overfeed and then disappear in order to avoid any serious nutriment’s overload to animals and hominids excessively found of sugar. One day under (or on) a fruit tree is enough for an animal to dangerously overfeed if there’s nothing to limits its ration. It is undoubtedly for this reason that the emergent function ensuring nutritional regulation includes a large intrinsic part: the animal limits itself spontaneously with every natural product, because there are frequent situations where the natural products are available in amounts sufficient to endanger its physiological balance and temporary capacity to flee or respond to a predator’s attack. This intrinsic part of the regulation appears by various alliesthesic mechanisms (sense of smell, taste, repletion, dislike, etc): it is precisely what I call the alimentary instinct.
  
It’s in my turn to ask you a question: are there during the year, in the Philippines, periods without wild fruit? Let us point out for Alphagruis that the existence of such periods does not exclude at all the utility – neither in terms of survival capacity and evolution nor in terms of emergent functions –  of regulation mechanisms ensuring nutritional balance during each specific fruit season.

I suppose that since animals and hominids have been exposed to the fact Alphagruis underlines for hundreds millions years, it is logical to consider there’s is a reciprocal adaptation (or coevolution), as pointed out by Hanna:

One could argue that fruits and animals adapted to each other.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 01:47:33 pm by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2010, 04:43:24 pm »
Nevertheless there could be a tendency for us to be "fooled" by the fruits and to eat too much of them, especially (or at least) if we eat cultivated varieties ("gezüchtete Sorten"), as we generally do.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #92 on: July 08, 2010, 05:10:27 pm »
Sure, that's why we should always prefer the wildest varieties and be careful with cultivated fruits!

Anyway, at least for me, there's still an automatic regulation. Sometimes I get bored to eat fruits and then I eagerly look for something else to eat in case fruits are the only foodstuff available around.

Francois
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

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 #93 on: July 08, 2010, 07:47:24 pm »
My latest instinct is to stop eating animal meat for a day today.

So today I've had:
- coconuts
- guavas
- green mango
- green orange variety
- avocados

Maybe I will regain my urge to eat animal food tomorrow.

The trick is to not fall for the sugar bomb fruits.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 08:30:24 pm by goodsamaritan »
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

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #94 on: July 09, 2010, 01:03:40 am »
Nevertheless there could be a tendency for us to be "fooled" by the fruits and to eat too much of them, especially (or at least) if we eat cultivated varieties ("gezüchtete Sorten"), as we generally do.

Hanna,

 The so called " partial answer" to my argument has already been commented on before. It is either irrelevant or just plain wrong and ridiculously contradictory with what Burger "teached" us up to now. Let's comment a bit more.

Figs are available 3 months in France (and even whole year round if dried ;D) but nobody except foolish instinctos (when there were still some of them ;)) ate them up to so-called "stop" whenever they wanted to or their supposed "instinct" told them. This availabilty of figs is a sheer neolithic phenomenon and normal people precisely have adapted to it by culture and know perfectly well that they have to restrict their intake willfully. So this is absolutely irrelevant to what happened in nature or paleotimes.

In nature or paleotimes animals or man do or did by no means nicely "limit spontaneously" the intake of sweet or fatty foods to their strict, according to intincto dogma "present nutritional needs". They rather eat as much as they can usually up to repletion. Pygmees for instance have been observed to gorge on wild honey when they are lucky enough to get at it. There would be satiety signals preventing them to gorge if the pygmee had just a meal before but a normal pygmee would then not have gone and look for honeycomb with the risks of the confrontation with the bees that don't like so much their honey to be stolen ;) Satiety signals do not usually just by themselves have to ensure limited intake. Things are much more involved and subtle. We have obviously evolved to adapt to a world where very sweet or fatty foods were most of the time fairly difficult to obtain, the only serious way to explain the reality of (too, in civilized world) strong attraction towards such foods   

The pygmees of course do not "need" presently so much sugar and get then certainly a huge insulin spike and become sleepy with temporary "impaired capacity to flee or respond to a predator's attack". But this is not a daily phenomenon with strong statistical weight in terms of being killed or having their sugar regulation machinery impaired on the one hand and on the other hand permits them to store the excess of nutriments in the form of fat for less fortunate days.  BTW an organism has nothing like "present or instantaneous often rapidly varying from day to day or hour to hour needs" in terms of nutriments as repeatedly invoked in instincto dogma. Pure civilized man fad. So there is also no reason to invoke the existence of supposed "finely tuned instinctive stop" signals during each individual meal.   Animals are actually equipped with powerful biochemical means to adapt to both temporary excess or lack of food or nutriments. Nutritional regulation and balance has just to be ensured and take place over many weeks or months and actually a whole year period. Obviously alimentary regulation in nature is a very subtle and complex phenomenon that can by no means be reduced even approximately to a regulation based on encoded sensory signals or some mysterious "instinct" attached to an animal.
Moreover, as well as others, I've already commented briefly on the ridiculous contradictions in Burger's recent and former statements. Confronted to the overwhelming evidence, Burger now perversely feigns to call "alimentary instinct" the trivial fact well known since long before Burger that there is an "intrinsic part" in food regulation and intake such as the attractions or repulsions or encoded satiety signals. In other words in his new version his so-called "alimentary instinct" just no longer ensures nutritional regulation and health. This converts instincto de facto into a plain triviality and I challenge the rare remaining instinctos to demonstrate what's the usefullness or purpose of further invoking such a ridiculous "instinct"  ;D   
And this new form of instincto would have absolutely nothing to do and be completely at odds with the former spectacular and arrogant instincto claims and version (the very heart of instincto message actually) such as stated Burger's Anopsology and  which is also actually the very reason of instincto failure.

Burger's teaching to instinctos:

Quote

17. Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.


Finally for charity reason I won't further insist, but what's emergent in this respect in nature cannot be a supposed "function ensuring nutritional regulation" but is merely the specific order in the form of a healthy (or ill) organism (with thus balanced (or not) nutrition) embedded in a healthy (or ill) ecosystem.

Note also that I do not of course deny the « utility » of sensory and satiety signals as Burger again feigns to believe. They just do not and do not even have by themselves to ensure food intake regulation in nature as instincto dogma postulates, not even during a single fruit season.


« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 01:13:15 am by alphagruis »

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #95 on: July 10, 2010, 03:22:35 am »

The pygmees of course do not "need" presently so much sugar and get then certainly a huge insulin spike and become sleepy with temporary "impaired capacity to flee or respond to a predator's attack".
Hihihaha..
But Let me play your devil´s advocate: You ignored that the pygmee´s instinct is "denatured" because the pygmees are no rawfoodists, let alone instinctos. So their instinct cannot function properly. Is that correct, Iguana? ;)

What does your diet look like in practice, Alpha? Are there deliberate differences between your current diet and an instincto type of diet?

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #96 on: July 10, 2010, 07:24:56 am »
Hihihaha..
But Let me play your devil´s advocate: You ignored that the pygmee´s instinct is "denatured" because the pygmees are no rawfoodists, let alone instinctos. So their instinct cannot function properly. Is that correct, Iguana? ;)

What does your diet look like in practice, Alpha? Are there deliberate differences between your current diet and an instincto type of diet?


Pygmees eat actually a lot of raw meat. They eat what's available locally as it has been 99.995% of our evolutionary path and will be in future. If an "instinct" were too exist I would bet that it is much less "denaturated" in pygmees than western rawfoodists and instinctos. HGs were generally in much better health than instinctos in spite of a fraction of cooked food in their diet. Moreover instinctos routinely overeat honey or sweet food in spite of their 100% raw diet.

Moreover if there is something that cannot be explained away by a "denaturated or wicked instinct" , please let me know, Hanna  :)

My diet is Raw Paleo with fatty meat and organs, fish ,shellfish, eggs etc with a modest part of fruit and plant food (essentially greens plus some nuts) in winter and more in summer. Fruit is rarely tropical. Typically around 1800 kcal a day only even in case of important physical activity. I know in advance what kind of food might be appropriate. Nothing to do with an "instinct" IMO, just initial training.   

   

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #97 on: July 10, 2010, 06:27:56 pm »
>>Pygmees eat actually a lot of raw meat.

I didn´t know that.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #98 on: July 11, 2010, 12:57:35 am »
I didn’t want to interfere anymore with your holly debunking mission, but your posts contain such crocks of shit (amongst interesting and remarkable info) that I feel compelled to reestablish some facts. 

Hanna,
The so called " partial answer" to my argument has already been commented on before. It is either irrelevant or just plain wrong and ridiculously contradictory with what Burger "teached" us up to now.

I fail to see any ridiculous contradiction between what Burger "taught" before and "teaches" now. Since you never followed his teaching but rather those of FvB, I wonder how you can write such a statement.

Quote
Figs are available 3 months in France (and even whole year round if dried ;D) but nobody except foolish instinctos (when there were still some of them ;)) ate them up to so-called "stop" whenever they wanted to or their supposed "instinct" told them.

May I remind you that you were one of those “foolish instinctos” for several years (shame on you… :'() and that you ate figs up to the “so called stop” along with me for weeks without the slightest trouble appearing .

Quote
This availabilty of figs is a sheer neolithic phenomenon and normal people precisely have adapted to it by culture and know perfectly well that they have to restrict their intake willfully. So this is absolutely irrelevant to what happened in nature or paleotimes.

Are you so sure there were no fruits in hominid’s environment during the Paleolithic era? How comes there’s a lot of different fruits in the Amazonian rain forest as well as wild rambutans, durians, jacks and cempedaks in the Southeast Asian rain forest inhabited by apes? “Normal people”… do you consider people on SWD as normal and RPDers as abnormal morons? Of course, when you eat bread, pizzas, raviolis, chips and cheeseburgers you’re not attracted by figs. These guys don’t even have to willfully restrict their intake of figs (or other fruits): they simply can’t eat it in bigger amounts than tiny samples.   

Quote
In nature or paleotimes animals or man do or did by no means nicely "limit spontaneously" the intake of sweet or fatty foods to their strict, according to intincto dogma "present nutritional needs". They rather eat as much as they can usually up to repletion.


Even supposing you’re right (which I hope you’ll grant me the right to doubt) how do they know they reach repletion, hey? Do they also eat so called “medicinal plants” up to repletion?

Quote
Pygmees for instance have been observed to gorge on wild honey when they are lucky enough to get at it. There would be satiety signals preventing them to gorge if the pygmee had just a meal before but a normal pygmee would then not have gone and look for honeycomb with the risks of the confrontation with the bees that don't like so much their honey to be stolen ;) Satiety signals do not usually just by themselves have to ensure limited intake. Things are much more involved and subtle.


Ok, would you like to go and live with them to experience their diet and way of live?

Quote
We have obviously evolved to adapt to a world where very sweet or fatty foods were most of the time fairly difficult to obtain, the only serious way to explain the reality of (too, in civilized world) strong attraction towards such foods


Big animals have always been very easy to catch, skin and eat, isn’t it? How comes hence that we have a very strong attraction for their meat? 

Quote
The pygmees of course do not "need" presently so much sugar and get then certainly a huge insulin spike and become sleepy with temporary "impaired capacity to flee or respond to a predator's attack". But this is not a daily phenomenon with strong statistical weight in terms of being killed or having their sugar regulation machinery impaired on the one hand and on the other hand permits them to store the excess of nutriments in the form of fat for less fortunate days.


Right, they may eat more than immediately needed  and store it for tomorrow. I too do it sometimes. What’s the problem if there’s no predator around?

Quote
BTW an organism has nothing like "present or instantaneous often rapidly varying from day to day or hour to hour needs" in terms of nutriments as repeatedly invoked in instincto dogma. Pure civilized man fad. So there is also no reason to invoke the existence of supposed "finely tuned instinctive stop" signals during each individual meal.   Animals are actually equipped with powerful biochemical means to adapt to both temporary excess or lack of food or nutriments. Nutritional regulation and balance has just to be ensured and take place over many weeks or months and actually a whole year period.


Yes, I think your’re not completely wrong here, at least in regard to organisms in perfect health. The name “instinctotherapy” means it is intended for ill persons (as we civilized  are all more or less) and in such cases it has been found very advantageous to fill as much as possible the instantaneous  needs of those poor “pure civilized “ women and men.

Quote
Moreover, as well as others, I've already commented briefly on the ridiculous contradictions in Burger's recent and former statements. Confronted to the overwhelming evidence, Burger now perversely feigns to call "alimentary instinct" the trivial fact well known since long before Burger that there is an "intrinsic part" in food regulation and intake such as the attractions or repulsions or encoded satiety signals. In other words in his new version his so-called "alimentary instinct" just no longer ensures nutritional regulation and health. This converts instincto de facto into a plain triviality and I challenge the rare remaining instinctos to demonstrate what's the usefullness or purpose of further invoking such a ridiculous "instinct"  ;D  And this new form of instincto would have absolutely nothing to do and be completely at odds with the former spectacular and arrogant instincto claims and version (the very heart of instincto message actually) such as stated Burger's Anopsology and  which is also actually the very reason of instincto failure.

Uuhhhhg?

Quote
Finally for charity reason I won't further insist, but what's emergent in this respect in nature cannot be a supposed "function ensuring nutritional regulation" but is merely the specific order in the form of a healthy (or ill) organism (with thus balanced (or not) nutrition) embedded in a healthy (or ill) ecosystem.

What to do then if we are ill at the start and have no way to be embedded anymore into a healthy ecosystem?

Quote
Note also that I do not of course deny the « utility » of sensory and satiety signals as Burger again feigns to believe. They just do not and do not even have by themselves to ensure food intake regulation in nature as instincto dogma postulates, not even during a single fruit season.

And simultaneously you maintain that these sensory and satiety signals are not an intrinsic part of an instinct?

HGs were generally in much better health than instinctos in spite of a fraction of cooked food in their diet.


Do you expect individuals grown on cooked diet, wheat and dairy for several generation and even often having been deprived  of breastfeeding to miraculously regain a health state comparable to HG having been subject to an intense natural selection up to the latest generation? Don’t forget that many instinctos were in a very bad shape before and would be in hospital bed or even dead by now had they not switched to instinctive nutrition.

What do you think of the health state of GCB offsprings who have almost always been eating instincto?

Quote
Moreover instinctos routinely overeat honey or sweet food in spite of their 100% raw diet.

On what base do you determine the threshold to overeating sweet foodstuff ? How do you know they overeat sweet food? How comes that the diabetics swapping to instinctive nutrition see their symptoms disappear?

Quote
My diet is Raw Paleo with fatty meat and organs, fish ,shellfish, eggs etc with a modest part of fruit and plant food (essentially greens plus some nuts) in winter and more in summer. Fruit is rarely tropical. Typically around 1800 kcal a day only even in case of important physical activity. I know in advance what kind of food might be appropriate. Nothing to do with an "instinct" IMO, just initial training.
   

About the same than mine except that I probably eat more fruits than you (I ever ate a lot of fruits and sweet stuff, even when I was on cooked diet). After the usual initial instincto training and following several years of practice, I also know most of the time in advance (instinctively, mind you!) what food will be appropriate. But anyway, my nose located just over my mouth is there to check what comes in. A second check takes place in my mouth.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 07:53:57 am by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Instincto Debunking Thread
« Reply #99 on: July 11, 2010, 01:15:45 am »
I told you repeatedly before, Iguana

Don't be so angry.... No need, everybody here thinks you're right  ;D




 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk