Explain Instincto Diet Fully

[PaleoPhil]

Nice post, Iguana. Most of your rebuttals seem reasonable, though I don't fully understand the whole context of course, but I think we agree on most points. I just have a question and some quibbles.

Did you address somewhere Nieft's quotes on quantities of bananas and passion fruit consumed? They don't seem to have any "neat stop," given these figures and the experience of President Carter (who seems to be an honest man), myself and others.

Before, foodstuffs could only be grilled,

Actually, there were a number of cooking methods in the Stone Age, such as heating on stones around a fire, burying in a pit with hot rocks, throwing into or on top of a fire, cooking in a pit filled with water and hot stones, boiling in a gourd, smoking, hanging well above a fire instead of grilling directly over it, etc., and I would be surprised if standard grilling was the most common. My guess would be that most times people didn't bother to cook until fairly late in the Paleolithic, in part not to attract other people and animals who might want to steal the meat, but that is speculation on my part and it is an area that needs more research.

Rice, for instance, does not seem to give any troubles (see Seignalet).

It gives me troubles and it is well documented to cause deficiencies in vitamin A and other nutrients and contribute to myopia, blindness and certain cancers. Maybe he meant it gives less troubles than the gluten grains?

I went through a fruitarian phase so I have some experience with fruits.
I view bananas as some of the least desired, least nutritious fruits. (Although there is a wide variety of them.)
....

I have come to the same opinion. I had been eating them often in an attempt to counter my potassium deficiency (which caused cramps), but even eating a banana every day in combination with a potassium supplement every day was not enough to completely avoid the cramps. I have now completed my third day in a row without any potassium supplement or banana, eating little else than meats, fats, eggs, greens and a little liver and I have not had any cramps. Goodsamaritan, can you explain this, or anyone else? Maybe Lex understands it. Apparently, the potassium in bananas is not nearly as well absorbed as that in meats/liver? This is truly fascinating and unexpected--AND WONDERFUL. HOORAH! I didn't expect my deficiencies to be cured within days of eliminating fruits and increasing my meat/fat/organ intake after one last week of increased fruit intake. It will be interesting to see if meat & fat alone prevent the cramps, or if I will need to continue eating liver as well.

It's funny it's illegal to get horse meat for human consumption in Australia but legal to sell it overseas.

PETA got horse export for meat banned in the US. The result was that old and sick horses lost their value and were allowed to starve to death in miserable conditions. PETA didn't seem to put nearly as much effort in preventing or fixing this disaster as they did in getting the ban through. They seem much more concerned with stopping humans from eating meat than they are with the actual welfare of the animals. When it suddenly becomes illegal to use millions of animals for food, as in this case, they are either starved or slaughtered and dumped into landfills, not put in massive animal refuges and kept alive with cleared land and expensive feed at government expense.

Europeans and Asians, and such historical cultures as the Celts, Turks, Mongols, Huns, Tatars, Scythians and their predecessors have been eating horse meat for at least tens of thousands of years. According to the Romans and others, most or all of these cultures regarded raw horse flesh and blood as very nutritious and a secret weapon that gave their warriors an advantage. There are even some horses in the Stone Age cave drawing in the Raw Paleo Forum logo image (all the animals portrayed were eaten by the people who drew them).

[goodsamaritan]

Every Filipino MD or Traditional healer knows the LATUNDAN variety of bananas is known to stop a loose bowel movement condition caused by potassium deficiency or any potassium deficiency.

Note that you want LATUNDAN bananas for potassium and not the other varieties.

A few years ago, I was out of town, my little girl was hospitalized for non-stop loose bowel movement.  Her hospital medical treatment was to pause eating and drinking by 3 hours and feed her lots of LATUNDAN bananas.  I could have treated her that way myself, but I was out of town.

These common things cost 30 pesos per kilo.  Ultra cheap.

These bananas are organic by default.

If you are getting cavendish bananas, those are not good.  Nobody eats them in my country.  They are loaded with pesticides and washing chemicals.

[RawZi]

Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 07:22:21 PM »

Thanks, RawZi. I only need something on rare occasions, such as when I accidentally eat the wrong thing or cheat too much, so it would preferably be something I could store a long time. Your mention of herbs reminded me that I do have ginger tea, thanks. It's not truly raw, but as an occasional medicinal I think that would be OK on a RPD. I could drink that and eat raw bone marrow or suet when my stomach needs soothing.

Re: tofu, I can't stand the taste or mouth feel of straight tofu, even when mixed with other foods. I can't imagine how anyone could think it tastes good. To me soy is one of the nastiest foods on the planet. The only soy food I liked that I tried was soy ice cream, and even that was not as good as dairy ice cream or avocado ice cream or sorbet.

    Maybe terramin clay would work, as it's easier to keep around. 

    Soy masquerades around as scramble, sausages, etc, the key word being masquerade.  It's really not food at all.  That being said, I'm fine avoiding cacao altogether and coffee, but if I had to have soy ice cream, cacao and coffee have been the only (ayurvedic) antidotes to get that ice cream down my gullet.

    I do like marrow a lot, I'm sure I posted that somewhere on this forum recently.

It gives me troubles and it is well documented to cause deficiencies in vitamin A and other nutrients and contribute to myopia, blindness and certain cancers. Maybe he meant it gives less troubles than the gluten grains?

    Rice can contribute to myopia? No wonder I found it so acidic.  Thank you!

Apparently, the potassium in bananas is not nearly as well absorbed as that in meats/liver? This is truly fascinating and unexpected--AND WONDERFUL. HOORAH! I didn't expect my deficiencies to be cured within days of eliminating fruits and increasing my meat/fat/organ intake after one last week of increased fruit intake. It will be interesting to see if meat & fat alone prevent the cramps, or if I will need to continue eating liver as well.

    Thank you.  I was getting muscle cramps lately, and have not been eating liver.  No wonder the lamb liver looked so good to me tonight in Whole Foods.

They seem much more concerned with stopping humans from eating meat than they are with the actual welfare of the animals. When it suddenly becomes illegal to use millions of animals for food, as in this case, they are either starved or slaughtered and dumped into landfills, not put in massive animal refuges and kept alive with cleared land and expensive feed at government expense.

    How sad.

Europeans and Asians, and such historical cultures as the Celts, Turks, Mongols, Huns, Tatars, Scythians and their predecessors have been eating horse meat for at least tens of thousands of years. According to the Romans and others, most or all of these cultures regarded raw horse flesh and blood as very nutritious and a secret weapon that gave their warriors an advantage. There are even some horses in the Stone Age cave drawing in the Raw Paleo Forum logo image (all the animals portrayed were eaten by the people who drew them).

    Is horse these days generally healthier to eat somehow than other meats?

[TylerDurden]

I'm eating (grassfed) horsemeat right now on vacation and it tastes great. I prefer the taste to grassfed beef, IMO. I suppose I trust horsemeat more as horses are generally more likely to be left out to pasture etc. whereas cattle are more likely to be "managed" re diet.

Bo Derek was the vegetarian(vegan?) moron who managed to ban US horsemeat for export. Feel free to send her hate-letters and the like.

[PaleoPhil]

Note that you want LATUNDAN bananas for potassium and not the other varieties....

I've never seen those in the US, though there is a variety they just label as "small bananas," but I don't think they are Latundan, because they are not as plump as the images on the Net.


Thanks for the clay idea, RawZi. I had tried ingesting healing clay in the past with no effect, but now that my diet is more optimized, perhaps it would help on the rare occasions I might need it. It is certainly known to help the old-fashioned folks and chimps who use it.

Yes, I found even soy ICE CREAM to have a sour, off-taste. I was SOOO happy to be able to give up on soy foods. Darn that nutritionist! I have found anthropologists to generally have more knowledge on what to eat than nutritionists or doctors.

Yes, at least 3 factors have been identified in myopia--inherited tendency, diet (such as heavy consumption of rice, wheat and other nutrient-depleting foods), and believe it or not the old wives tale of using lots of close vision, such as with reading, appears to also be a factor, according to the latest science I read.

I completed day 5 without potassium supplements or bananas (and 3 days without zinc, yay!). So far, raw and low-cooked meat and fat alone have been enough to keep the potassium cramps away, unless I'm still benefiting from the liver I ate days ago.


Curse the ignorance of that Bo Derek!

[Iguana]

Nice post, Iguana. Most of your rebuttals seem reasonable, though I don't fully understand the whole context of course, but I think we agree on most points. I just have a question and some quibbles.

Did you address somewhere Nieft's quotes on quantities of bananas and passion fruit consumed? They don't seem to have any "neat stop," given these figures and the experience of President Carter (who seems to be an honest man), myself and others.

Thanks Phil. No, I didn’t.  I don’t know about Jimmy Carter’s experience with bananas… Mine is that I can’t hardly eat too many of them since a slight nausea occurs as I ate enough of them. The question probably is : “How much is too much and how much is enough ?” Is 48 bananas in a meal too much  ? Well who knows ? Nutritionists think they know, but I do not and only my instinct tells me ! There are so many variables such as the size, ripeness, variety and quality of the bananas, the age and size of the person, his/her physical condition and digestive power at the moment and so on. I don’t think I ever ate so many bananas in a single meal : sometimes I feel that I ate enough after 2 or 3 and sometimes such a feeling comes after perhaps more than 20 very ripe  small ones ( I do not count !).

But that’s it : someone is occasionally able to eat instinctively an amazing amount of a particular food. For me it was for example about 35 seabirds eggs in an afternoon, a whole 50 cm (20 inches) long tunafish in a few minutes, a big deer leg in two days or several large durians at almost every meal for two months. Such nutritional behavior is widespread amongst wild animals.

You are right to point out that wild bananas are barely edible and I agree it’s better to eat wild foodstuff whenever available. Nevertheless, plants are constantly evolving and new varieties continually appear, even naturally. To what extend our instinct is able to cope with these new varieties is an open question to which GC Burger and us have tried to answer by experimenting – and this experiment has been going on for more than 40 years with  thousands of persons as well as with hundreds of laboratory mouse (early GC Burger’s experiments in late 60’s and early 70’s) and other mammals.
 

Actually, there were a number of cooking methods in the Stone Age, such as heating on stones around a fire, burying in a pit with hot rocks, throwing into or on top of a fire, cooking in a pit filled with water and hot stones, boiling in a gourd, smoking, hanging well above a fire instead of grilling directly over it, etc., and I would be surprised if standard grilling was the most common.

Right !

(Rice) gives me troubles and it is well documented to cause deficiencies in vitamin A and other nutrients and contribute to myopia, blindness and certain cancers. Maybe he meant it gives less troubles than the gluten grains?

Yes, probably. Of course, a diet based on rice leads to such troubles, but once in a way a few raw whole rice grains soaked one or two days in water shouldn’t hurt much, certainly much less than wheat.

Cheers
Francois

[PaleoPhil]

I am familiar with Jimmy Carter's story, as I heard him tell it in an interview. He ate a lot of bananas to successfully gain weight so as to get into the Navy. My own experience matches his, in that I find that bananas don't have nearly as much of a stop as raw meat and other foods. That could explain those numbers that Nieft quoted. Some people may get early stops with bananas, but it seems that in general they have much less of a stop than most Instincto foods.

Personally, I find that I start developing negative health symptoms, such as dry, dead skin (dermatitis, dandruff, chapped lips, etc.), gunk on my teeth, morning breath, bleeding gums, poor quality sleep, fatigue, etc. from eating bananas long before any stops kick in. I didn't realize that bananas and some other fruits were having this effect until I stopped eating them completely. Maybe my case is rare. I'm hoping that I'll be able to eat at least some wild fruits and berries in the future, but if it impacts my health I've found I can live without fruits and nuts much more easily than I expected.

...Nevertheless, plants are constantly evolving and new varieties continually appear, even naturally.

The generally accepted definition of a Paleo diet is one that draws on the types of foods that were available more than ten thousand years ago, before the diseases of civilization became prevalent (granted, that GA definition could change). Since I've found that I benefit from a Paleo diet and it makes instinctive as well as rational sense to me, I'm not particularly interested in newly evolved varieties of foods at the moment. I've found in my experience that the more ancient a food is, the less of a negative effect it is likely to have on me. So once I found that bananas provided less potassium for me than meats do, it didn't surprise me to learn that bananas were basically inedible before the Neolithic and that their range was originally limited to parts of Southeast Asia.

I've found that the biggest key to sticking to the foods I do well on is to not bring other foods into my home at all. Since buying rice requires buying at least a bag of it, I don't intend to ever buy any. I don't find rice to be particularly tasty anyway, so I'm also not likely to eat it as a cheat outside the home unless it becomes inconvenient to not do so (such as when someone cooks something for me that already has rice mixed in with it--that's the only time I've found a reason to eat it).

Each to their own, of course, and I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm still learning and the differences between Instincto and RPD are pretty minor when compared to SAD and vegetarianism. Thanks again for the info.

[RawZi]

He ate a lot of bananas to successfully gain weight so as to get into the Navy. My own experience matches his, in that I find that bananas don't have nearly as much of a stop as raw meat and other foods. That could explain those numbers that Nieft quoted. Some people may get early stops with bananas, but it seems that in general they have much less of a stop than most Instincto foods.

Maybe my case is rare. I'm hoping that I'll be able to eat at least some wild fruits and berries in the future, but if it impacts my health I've found I can live without fruits and nuts much more easily than I expected.
So once I found that bananas provided less potassium for me than meats do, it didn't surprise me to learn that bananas were basically inedible before the Neolithic ...

Since buying rice requires buying at least a bag of it, I don't intend to ever buy any. I don't find rice to be particularly tasty anyway, so I'm also not likely to eat it as a cheat outside the home unless it becomes inconvenient to not do so (such as when someone cooks something for me that already has rice mixed in with it--that's the only time I've found a reason to eat it).

I'm still learning and the differences between Instincto and RPD are pretty minor when compared to SAD and vegetarianism.

    I had this neighbor in the tropics, regular omnivore, when she wanted to lose weight she would switch from rice to potatoes and start eating a lot of bananas.  Seemed to work for her for weightloss.  She talked about banana weightLOSS connection like it was something everyone knew.  The bananas grew everywhere, so they were pritttee natural.

    Bananas just about always made my stomach turn, yuck.

[PaleoPhil]

Heh, yeah, if bananas make your stomach turn then I could definitely see how they would lead to weight loss.

[Iguana]

So long as the choices we make available to ourselves are well-varied and consist in whole, raw fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, sprouts, meats, fish, eggs, insects, earth, our natural (yet admittedly sadly surpressed) instincts tend to kick in after 5 days or so, no more, after which it becomes surprisingly easily and opens us up to whole new worlds of gustatory pleasure. And what is the great risk of having eaten "wrongly" for 5 days if your "wrong" choices were nevertheless only whole, raw foods?

-Za

Our food instinct is always "on" and working . But it has evolved and has been perfected with the stuff available in the nature for hundreds thousands years or rather millions years. Therefore it is unable to work properly with artificial, processed, mixed or spiced things like chocolate, lemonade, antifreeze, salads, soups or any cooked foodstuff.

Wild animals fall into the trap when they have access to our garbage, bread or any cooked leftovers, and it's easy to understand why. It has been the same for the mankind once we mastered the fire: we fell just into the same trap - in which the vast majority of people on Earth are still today ! Even nutritionists haven't yet understood that 

So , you don't even have to wait 5 days for your food instinct to work when you eat unprocessed, non-spiced, unmixed paleo-food ! It works immediately.

Cheers
Francois

[PaleoPhil]

Our food instinct is always "on" and working . But it has evolved and has been perfected with the stuff available in the nature for hundreds thousands years or rather millions years. Therefore it is unable to work properly with artificial, processed, mixed or spiced things like chocolate, lemonade, antifreeze, salads, soups or any cooked foodstuff.

So humans must eat a food for hundreds of thousands of years to develop a "food instinct" about it?

[RawZi]

Heh, yeah, if bananas make your stomach turn then I could definitely see how they would lead to weight loss.

    Supposed to be that people on an omnivore cooked diet, when they eat a lot of ripe local untreated bananas, it's laxative, maybe the type of fiber in banana. My instinct tells me bananas smell bad. 

    She told me grain puts on and keeps on weight.  I was thin then and ate grain everyday.  I know now that grain is used to fatten animals, and for me grain just destroyed my appetite, etc because it was bad for my liver, adrenals and thyroid.  Of course, getting grain off the menu took unnecessary weight off my body.

    Grain is just so unhealthy generally and/or difficult to use, it's a wonder it's so popular worldwide.  That must be due to its addiction factor.

[Iguana]

So humans must eat a food for hundreds of thousands of years to develop a "food instinct" about it?

I'm not sure I understand correctly your question, but I'll try to  explain what I mean in a better way .

Animals (humans included) instincts have evolved along with their environment. An animal found of a toxic stuff would probably die without being able to procreate and therefore would be eliminated by natural selection, which insure that only the individuals with a food instinct working correctly will survive and reproduce.

Said differently, the food instinct attains its fulfillment in whatever makes the individual survive; all individuals which have not had the instinct to eat in proper amount what their body needs have been eliminated by natural selection.

It doesn't work with cooked food because the selective pressure is too low: the troubles induced happen most of the time late in the individual's live, leaving enough lifespan to procreate and reproduce. There is nevertheless a slight selective pressure, so that a partial adaptation to some neolithic food such as dairy products is probably underway in some populations.

Cheers
Francois   

[PaleoPhil]

I'm not sure I understand correctly your question, but I'll try to  explain what I mean in a better way .

I understand the general principal of food instinct, I'm just exploring which foods it would apply to. You've identified cooked foods as foods which the food instinct doesn't apply to and you said that human food instincts developed over hundreds of thousands of years of eating certain foods, yes? Do you have a very rough estimate as to how many hundreds of thousands of years it takes to adapt to a new food, like your example of dairy?

[Iguana]

I understand the general principal of food instinct, I'm just exploring which foods it would apply to. You've identified cooked foods as foods which the food instinct doesn't apply to and you said that human food instincts developed over hundreds of thousands of years of eating certain foods, yes?

Not necessarily eating the stuff, but that particular stuff must have been present in the environment for a period long enough to allow natural selection the duration necessary to eliminate the individuals which haven’t perceived it as poisonous.

Do you have a very rough estimate as to how many hundreds of thousands of years it takes to adapt to a new food, like your example of dairy?

I suppose there are some stuffs to which partial or total adaptation is relatively easy (different plants and animals specie’s meat) and others to which any human adaptation is impossible, no matter how long (ethylene-glycol for example  ). Other animals specie’s milks may be nearer the first category whereas cooked and mixed food may be nearer the second. But I wouldn’t dare guessing any duration, even rough. Suffice to say that since our split from the chimps branch and now about 6 millions years elapsed. And some individuals may more or less be adapted while some other wouldn’t be adapted. We are all different.

Cheers
Francois   

[Iguana]

Yes, I read carefully Kirt Nieft’s account in 2002 and I wrote him the e-mail below to put things right. As he didn’t answer, I finally posted the same message on the “Raw-food list”. A long suite of public exchanges  followed, which is unfortunately lost since that “Raw-food list” doesn’t exist anymore. But my first e-mail to Kirt survived on my computer and here it is !

I notice that Kirt didn’t bother yet (even more than 7  years later !!) to correct his text on Beyondveg of the several mistakes I pointed out to him.

Wow, I found the “Raw-food list” archives ! Here it is : http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A1=ind0201&L=raw-food&T=0

Cheers
Francois

[invisible]

Interesting that people don't seem to like bananas. Really ripe brown spotted bananas are the best fruit for me. Other fruits with a creamy/fluffy type texture such as durian are also good. Very sweet sugary tasting fruits make me feel sick and fruits where the skin is eaten make me terribly bloated.

[Iguana]

I do have to force myself to eat more than my body signals for, or I lose too much weight--and I already have what some people would consider an "emaciated" body (though that's largely because I was born very thin and with fine bones and very little muscle tissue). I also have to drink more than my body calls for to minimize dehydration (and even doing so I'm still chronically slightly dehydrated). The Instincto instincts idea doesn't work for me--probably due to my body being messed up in some way. I know this is hard for people who have perfect instincts to understand, but I hope they will try to understand that not everyone has perfect instincts--even many months after adopting a RPD.

I think the key lesson to bear in mind, once again, is to speak for one's own experience, rather than for everyone.

For sure, we are all different and we all have a body messed up in some way ! Results of years of cooked food don’t disappear straight away miraculously without leaving long-lasting damages.

The conventional way of dietary thinking doesn’t work with raw, unprocessed food : for instance, our weight gains or losses are not directly correlated with the amount of food and calories we ingest. In fact, many people loose the more weight the more they eat ; and on the opposite, some people gain weight while eating only a little bit. It seems that eating a lot of raw food accelerate the elimination rate of some kinds of molecules our body had to live with because no better material was available for its construction.

Even if we are already thin at the start, we may initially loose some more weight, but after a while (maybe a year) we regain what has been lost and perhaps even more until we reach a normal weight.

By forcing yourself to eat more than you instinctively would, you get into a vicious circle of overload in some nutrient your body cannot use at the moment and you may feel therefore less and less hungry. It’s also very important when switching to raw food to have enough choice so that you can find what your body needs the most for the time being and to avoid overfeeding on some unneeded nutrients. Nothing that could be found in the nature should be excluded a priori for theoretical or idealistic reasons.

Instincts are good...but I don't think they'll always serve you right. A lot of animals overeat in captivity. I'm not saying we don't have any good instincts worth listening to, just that I don't think the idea that everything can be perfect and natural works.

Of course it’s not perfect since we are in interaction with our environment and we live in a more or less spoiled situation.  But still sufficient as long as we avoid processed food, dairy, grain and also as long as the foodstuff we may need is available. Animals in captivity are often fed unsuitable or processed food and therefore their instinct is somehow fooled.

[KD]

the problem with this idea isn't the concept that we are so polluted that are instincts are polluted (which is of course true and a problem) but the more basic, that for most modern people, we have to purchase food from outside sources, and probably not on a meal to meal basis. So there is absolutely no way the mind is never involved in terms of choosing what to eat and how much.

I've tried that 'your weight will automatically balance itself' stuff for years. and seen very few or any actually achieve a normal build doing so on any methodoloy. This is a thread in almost every raw food camp, and yet very few people have proved to maintain or create builds that completely defy the calorie paradigm, only ones that stretch it.

actual numerical weight is effected by cellular gunk, so examples of people's expanse, even on fasts is not completely impossible, but in most cases, the body is calling for a rest from eating perhaps, but the fasting is not healthful for their individual at that point. Which seems to be the whole rational behind eating animal fat other than our biological requirements, but to buffer these toxins.

as for excluding food sources, I've heard of some extremes in instinctive nutrition that will not eat at all from domesticated animals, and therefore flying all their food in from outer sources. how is it possible to know what they instinctively want for Tuesday? if the body only requires a certain amount of protein to function optimally, than clearly any excess of that in paleo times was just thrown away to the pursuit of petunias or whatever. The problem as mention is that these 'instincts' and selectivity go above and beyond what an animal actually uses to decide what to eat and becomes equally theoretically and of the mind.

[Paleo Donk]

I'd be highly skeptical of my instincts unless I was actually living in my natural environment away from all the distractions of modern life.

[Iguana]

the problem with this idea isn't the concept that we are so polluted that are instincts are polluted (which is of course true and a problem) but the more basic, that for most modern people, we have to purchase food from outside sources, and probably not on a meal to meal basis. So there is absolutely no way the mind is never involved in terms of choosing what to eat and how much.

It doesn’t matter if our mind is somehow involved at the moment of purchase and reaching for our purse: we know roughly what we’re gonna eat preferably in the following days, and probably animals also know more or less as well. But the mind should be under the command of our alimentary instinct rather than the opposite. We can store a lot of food at home: different meats, liver, eggs, shellfish, fish and vegetables in the fridge, as well as different nuts, dates and fruits in a cool place. Where is the problem ? When we want to eat, still we can choose instinctively (what smells best and what tastes best at the moment) between the available stuff. And if we don’t eat something immediately, we can most of the time store for latter.

I've tried that 'your weight will automatically balance itself' stuff for years. and seen very few or any actually achieve a normal build doing so on any methodoloy. This is a thread in almost every raw food camp, and yet very few people have proved to maintain or create builds that completely defy the calorie paradigm, only ones that stretch it.

We aren’t defying the calorie paradigm. The point is, most people eat more in calories than necessary and the excess is either stored in their body or it goes through without being assimilated. It’s also a matter of difference between what comes in and what goes out. It’s a fact that people initially loose weight (up to 1 kg daily for the really obese) if eating larges amounts of raw food after years of cooked diet, whereas those eating less don’t loose much weight or don’t loose weight at all. It seems that eating a lot spurs the elimination process. The skinny ones generally take on weight till they get in the norm, as long as there’s enough % of RAF in their diet (unfortunately, many are still influenced by vegetarian, or worse vegan ideology).

as for excluding food sources, I've heard of some extremes in instinctive nutrition that will not eat at all from domesticated animals, and therefore flying all their food in from outer sources. how is it possible to know what they instinctively want for Tuesday? if the body only requires a certain amount of protein to function optimally, than clearly any excess of that in paleo times was just thrown away to the pursuit of petunias or whatever. The problem as mention is that these 'instincts' and selectivity go above and beyond what an animal actually uses to decide what to eat and becomes equally theoretically and of the mind.

I’ve never heard of instinctos excluding meat from domesticated animals, but I do not know every one of them ! As I said above, a lot of different foods can be stored at home, so that say on Tuesday, you can choose between what is in your fridge, kitchen, basement, garden or surroundings. Once you’re in “cruise” mode, after a year or so, you don’t need so much choice and you could be satisfied with what is easily available around, especially in summer or in the tropics.  

I'd be highly skeptical of my instincts unless I was actually living in my natural environment away from all the distractions of modern life.

The experience shows that our alimentary instinct works well enough as long as the kind of raw, unprocessed foodstuff we need is available. It’s impressive with babies; it works just as well with cats and other pets. It is sufficient to avoid any food cooked, mixed, spiced, processed, as well as dairy and wheat.

[KD]

We aren’t defying the calorie paradigm. The point is, most people eat more in calories than necessary and the excess is either stored in their body or it goes through without being assimilated. It’s also a matter of difference between what comes in and what goes out. It’s a fact that people initially loose weight (up to 1 kg daily for the really obese) if eating larges amounts of raw food after years of cooked diet, whereas those eating less don’t loose much weight or don’t loose weight at all. It seems that eating a lot spurs the elimination process. The skinny ones generally take on weight till they get in the norm, as long as there’s enough % of RAF in their diet (unfortunately, many are still influenced by vegetarian, or worse vegan ideology).

well, let me say first off that my intention is not to point out random fallacies of Instinco within its own forum, but to continue the conversation moved form Tyler's Journal about whether to really on 'insticts' to stop eating or to have some artifical sense of how much and what types of things one should eat. I think what I said proved pretty well that you have to take some mental initiative and theorizing to fill your stores with X amounts and types of food. It's signifigant because even if you have a fridge full of every possible food on the planent that is 'natural',  the cleanest of humans, or any wild animal will not choose the food necessarily that provides for their best health. And the narrowest of choices will obviously lead to less chance of choosing a food that is most needed. In my mind, when you start saying that it does, even though it is not present in wild animals, it makes it way more theoretical than the idea of estimating food through weight,  known nutrition, or calories, which makes way more sense in terms of estimating what one needs to improve, not just to be satisfied. for many things like liver, which might seem totally unappealing might be totally essential for nutrition, and of course the idea that other 'medicinal' foods, which are probably turned down by instincto, as with hygiene, are also notoriously poor tasting, which animals sometimes seek out as well. These would not be on the shopping trip/order so in total how can your estimate, ever qualify without deciding those foods are healthy, and if you are eating all time tailored to a small appetite, how do you reconcile that the types of foods behind chosen, would only be possible in such a modern domestic setting. Not to mention never in the wild eaten in such fashion or sucession, and likely gorged upon at any opportunity and availability.

what you are saying about calories pretty much only applies to fruit in my research. people eating 4k of animal fat, will likely not lose weight in a similar fashion even against the convention that carbs make people gain weight. likely most people will some weight on a raw diet initially, but my point was, is that telling people who are already thin not to 'force' eating, is really equally idealistic and potentially dangerous advice. People can only claim that skinny returns to normal only by shifting the definition of normal away from SWD. Ironically if we are to obtain clean healthy bodies on a natural diet, we should be able to preform as well as our ancestors, including having large filled out frames. not merely non-emaciated ones.

[TylerDurden]

I disagree. A lot of the time, our instincts are not truly natural - whereas wild animals seem to instinctively find the right kind of nutrition for most of the time.

As for weight-gain, raw foods seem to constantly cause weight-loss, with the sole exception of raw dairy(and possibly) raw fermented  grains. I do wonder if those RPDers who mention they are underweight, are actually at their normal weight, but won't admit it, due to bodybuilding concerns.

[ys]

whereas wild animals seem to instinctively find the right kind of nutrition for most of the time

This is not conclusive and is very debatable. Cats do not have sweet receptors and care less about sugary foods.  Dogs and bears on the other hand would be all over sugary foods.  Bears are known to have a thing for alcohol  in the form of fermented grains.
If I had a dog I would do a simple experiment.  Wait until dog is really hungry and then give it 2 choices, meat and sweets, and see which one it will choose. 

[KD]

I disagree. A lot of the time, our instincts are not truly natural - whereas wild animals seem to instinctively find the right kind of nutrition for most of the time.

Of course over the long spectrum of their lives, wild animals instinctively choose their proper foods, but not if there is a shift in their environment or a drastic artificial change in circumstance or most importantly a choice in food supply. A Bear with the faculty to call Honey Pacifica would eat more honey than it needs in its diet and as long as it was readily available without effort. It doesn't stop eating fish with the idea that it can go to the store and pick more up if it goes bad.

as for weight-loss this sounds totally ridiculous in contrast to your argument - unless I perceived it wrong - that paleo men had far greater functional strength than Olympic lifters. wild animals are able to have huge muscular builds eating their biologically appropriate diet, whether plants or animals. They often consume a very specific and often large amount of food to maintain this equilibrium. Unless one is to believe humans are from outer space with other requirements, which is possible, they too have these requirements.

I don't see this as anythign other than the same logic proposed by vegans, that 'normal' SWD eaters are 'overweight'. Of course on a tissue level this has truth, but theoretically according to the proposed models, that once one become pure enough and emptied of these toxins, their bodys become full and healthy, often proposed regardless of intake. I spouted this garbage for years and have yet to see one concrete example of a person as majestic as an animal in this respect. So either this pursuit of cleanliness is largely impossible, OR the entire idea is just wrong, including the ideas of what constitute our natural diet. Clearly people are less than convinced here about the possibility of such eating only plants, so it makes the argument for eating RAF fairly poor if the outcome is essentially the same in respect to this issue anyway. Just because some might as they become healthier absorb more food and require less than someone unwell, does not change the fact that others might need that extra food to maintain healthy weight, no matter how pure their instincts become, because there is never a situation where those instincts manifest as per above.

as for the aesthetic element, I guess the photos of modern HG's and Native Americans, and Greek statues are all we have to go by, even though they all ate cooked foods. I think this comes down to again, looking at other animals and their weights/builds/and densities and if so that this theory is again largely mistaken. I know with myself my numerical weight I've heard is way lower than to the eye, however even still if I was to play a role in a film, like a fit thin Average Joe or something, I would probably have to gain 15 lbs. Of course again that is comparing it to 'toxic' people, but if one is truly healthy, than weight gain, like it is for expecting mothers, should be an effortless endeavor on our true natural diet. Its fine to be thin, as long as they are truly healthy enough to gain on natural raw foods and not hiding behind some notion that can't be possibly accurate for clean or ancient humans re: raw foods and weight-loss. Again this brings up basic suspicious about the contents and quantity in the diet being adequate for building OR cleansing. Only in health, what people CHOOSE to be at that point is their own business.