I post this in the instincto section as it supports a diet including substantial amounts of carbs. 

Citation from Wikipedia:

Inuit studied in the 1970s were found to have abnormally large livers, presumably to assist in this process. Their urine volumes were also high, a result of the excess urea produced by gluconeogenesis.[9] However, in multiple studies the traditional Inuit diet has not been shown to be a ketogenic diet.[10][11][12][13] Not only have multiple researchers been unable to detect any evidence of ketosis resulting from the traditional Inuit Diet, but the ratios of fatty-acid to glucose were observed to be well below the generally accepted level of ketogenesis.[10][11][12][13]
Inuit actually consume more carbohydrates than most nutritionists have assumed.[14]  (…) Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[22] (…) It has been suggested that because the fats of the Inuit's wild-caught game are largely monounsaturated and rich in omega-3 fatty acids, the diet does not pose the same health risks as a typical Western high-fat diet.[23] However, evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes.[24][25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#Nutrition

A few days ago I ate hard coconut meat. Although its taste is fine, it seems to be impossible for me to digest it properly (and no instinct will protect me against the resulting indigestion). I even guess there is nobody else who is able to digest hard coconut meat properly and completely. The only possibility (for me) to get all the nutrients out of it and not to risk indigestion seems to be to make coconut cream out of it. Coconut meat is too expensive and precious to throw it on the compost heap... How about you?

I just googled and found this article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880

BACKGROUND: The glycemic response to dietary fructose is low, which may improve concentrations of glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c), a marker of dysglycemia). Meanwhile, adverse effects on plasma triacylglycerol (a marker of dyslipidemia) and body weight have been questioned. Such effects are reported inconsistently.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of fructose on these health markers, particularly examining treatment dose and duration, and level of glycemic control.

DESIGN: A literature search was conducted for relevant randomized and controlled intervention studies of crystalline or pure fructose (excluding high-fructose corn syrup), data extraction, meta-analyses, and modeling using meta-regression. (...)

CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis shows that fructose intakes from 0 to >or=90 g/d have a beneficial effect on HbA(1c). Significant effects on postprandial triacylglycerols are not evident unless >50 g fructose/d is consumed, and no significant effects are seen for fasting triacylglycerol or body weight with intakes of <or=100 g fructose/d in adults.

So it seems that up to 50 g fructose (which corresponds to about 700 g bananas: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/what-are-you-eating-right-now/msg79692/#msg79692 http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/what-are-you-eating-right-now/msg79752/#msg79752) is perfectly safe and does not accelerate aging. Right?

I also found this:

...some researchers consider small levels of fructose, say 25-50 grams/day, actually a good thing.  In spite of all of its very dangerous properties, fructose can decrease HbA(1c) [prediabetic] levels, improve hypoglycemia effects [5] and potentially assist athletic performance and fueling. [4] (...) What I have found is that most experts consider about 50 grams/day of fructose to be completely safe.

http://www.peaktestosterone.com/Fructose_Levels.aspx

I read about premature aging of the Nenets (raw meat eating Siberian deindeer herders) and the Eskimos. Yesterday I read this:

The Eskimos* by comparison rated this description by Dr Samuel Hutton, who observed them over the period 1902 to 1913, from his book Health Conditions and Disease Incidence Among the Eskimos of Labrador:
Old age sets in at fifty and its signs are strongly marked at sixty. In the years beyond sixty the Eskimo is aged and feeble. Comparatively few live beyond sixty and only a very few reach seventy. Those who live to such an age have spent a life of great activity, feeding on Eskimo foods and engaging in characteristically Eskimo pursuits . . . Careful records have been left by the missionaries for more than a hundred years.

It was also noted that the Eskimos had very low resistance to infectious diseases and suffered severe osteoporosis as they got older. A later study of a small population (about 1000) on the east coast of Greenland by Hoygaard and Pedersen, Copenhagen 1941, showed an average lifespan of only twenty-seven and a half years mainly due to premature degeneration of adults. Their diet was ninety-five per cent flesh food but it was not stated whether the Eskimos had adopted the white man's practice of cooking their food.

http://chestofbooks.com/health/natural-cure/Ross-Horne/Health-and-Survival-in-the-21st-Century/Toxemia-and-the-Diseases-of-Civilization-Part-3.html

It has been said in a previous article that I found the exclusive meat diet in New York to be stimulating - I felt energetic and optimistic both winter and summer. Perhaps it may be considered that meat is, overall, a stimulating diet, in the sense that metabolic processes are speeded up. You are then living at a faster rate, which means you would grow up rapidly and get old soon. This is perhaps confirmed by that early maturing of Eskimo women which I have heretofore supposed to be mainly due to their almost complete protection from chill - they live in warm dwellings and dress warmly so that the body is seldom under stress to maintain by physiological processes a temperature balance. It may be that meat as a speeder-up of metabolism explains in part both that Eskimo women are sometimes grandmothers before the age of twenty-three, and that they usually seem as old at sixty as our women do at eighty.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson3.htm

The Eskimos were very familiar with constipation due to their low-fiber diet, and they created the spirit Matshishkapeu, the most powerful spirit in their mythology, to embody it.  The spirit's name literally translates into "Fart Man." In Inuit stories, he is known to inflict painful cases of constipation upon people and other gods (7).
(...)
For instance, in 1976, before the worst of the processed food crisis hit them, they consumed 2,000 mg of calcium a day from all the soft-bone fish they ate, a huge amount. All the same, they had (and still have) the highest hip-fracture rate in the world becuase they consume so much animal protein from fish (19).

http://www.raw-food-health.net/Primal-Diet.html

Is there anyone in this forum eating a 100% raw diet without much cheating? How long have you been eating a strict raw food diet? Is there anyone eating strictly raw without ANY cheating?

I was somewhat surprised to read that even wolves (not only I ) "instinctively" prefer fish to red meat:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080903-wolves-salmon.html

"Fishing wolves" in coastal British Columbia are also looking to snatch some salmon, and will eat the fish almost exclusively when they are available, new research reveals.
Biologists analyzed years of data from gray wolves' feces to monitor what the animals were eating.
The team found that the coastal predators, like many other wolves, rely on deer most of the time in the spring and summer.
But during several months in the fall, the wolves ignored deer to focus on migrating salmon.
(...)
"Salmon continue to surprise us, showing us new ways in which their oceanic migrations eventually permeate entire terrestrial ecosystems," he said.
"In terms of providing food and nutrients to a whole food web, we like to think of them as North America's answer to the Serengeti's wildebeest."
(...)
"People forget, but it wasn't too long ago when both salmon and wolves co-occurred over much, much greater portions of North America and even Europe. This fishing wolf would have existed from southern California up to Alaska," he said.

You may eat more of the same meat if it’s ground, so you’ll easily eat too much of it. As a result you may have digestion troubles and if you systematically grind your meat you can remain permanently in a state of meat overload which can be dangerous in the long run.  

Have you ever experimented with grinded meat, Iguana? I can´t eat much meat, even if it is grinded, so I cannot experiment with it. But when I pureed, for example, nuts, I could actually eat LESS of them as usually, the alliesthetic stops manifested earlier or at least clearer (maybe because the surface of the pureed food is larger?) and my digestion was more perfect, at least with some kinds of nuts. When I add salt to meat, avocado, vegetable etc., I can suddenly eat more of the respective food, because alliesthetic stops disappear, and this can have negative effects (in my case). But after extensive experimenting with pureeing food (because I wore fixed braces for one and a half years...) I think that there is no reason to "forbid" mechanical treatment of food on principle, as long as one doesn´t mix different foods together and doesn´t add condiments.

Gcb, Iguana, Susan and other instinctos or omnivore raw food eaters,

How much meat  (including fish etc.) approximately do you eat?

And do you think that there is a kind of "standard" of how much meat instinctos should eat or another standard or rule regarding animal food?

Gcb, you wrote that "one of main rules of instinctive nutrition precisely specifies that one should not remain more than a few weeks blocked to a food category." What exactly can I do or try if I remain blocked?