Explain Instincto Diet Fully

[GCB]

In contrast to sweet fruits, there is precisely absolutely no risk of overeating raw leafy parts or tubers because of their high plant defense chemicals content. No instincto or human ever seriously overate such parts of plants and my thesis is precisely that in this case our natural intrinsic or so-called "instinctive" attraction toward these plant parts is (and can be) too weak, quite the opposite as compared to sweet fruits where it is (and can be) too strong. Too strong or too weak as compared to what Burger or instincto dogma claims them to be. In this case of leafy plant parts environmental constraints forced our ancestors to eat them in larger quantities than intrinsic attraction or instinct would urge them to do since it was now really often the only food available all year round.

You should better, once and for all, stop distorting my speech to assault it as you do. Or then, you never followed my teaching and you built for yourselves a representation of the instincto corresponding to your own phantasms only and not to the reality.

I’ve been teaching for more than thirty years exactly what you wrote in the preceding paragraph. It’s clear that the fruits were selected so as to remain more attracting that nature, whereas this is not the case for vegetables and tubers. This difference is probably due to the fact that the fruits were generally eaten as they are, whereas the other plants passed by a preparation, so that their savor did not constitutes such a major part in the meal’s pleasure. The relearning of our alimentary instinct, such as defined for example on my website (page : 'Réapprendre l'instinct alimentaire'), precisely consists in benefiting from the sensory system’s capacity of adaptation, so that attractions and repulsions lead to a correct equilibration with the products available today.

In other words that's precisely another confirmation of my point that falsifies instincto. The quantities of food eaten by our ancestors and relevant dietary balance was not just a matter of intrinsic attraction or repulsion or "instincts" but actually basically a matter of environmental constraints

You forget the statistics which have been done for example on chimpanzee’s diet in nature: the fruit share represents about two thirds, that of sheets and roots a quarter, and the remainder consists of proteins (oilseeds, meat and insects). However, the alimentary instinct’s experiment shows that humans come substantially at the same proportions simply by listening to their instinct ¬ subject to the few rules I developed to restore as far as possible an adequate nutritional environment.

Stop playing Don Quichotte, assaulting your own makeover of a teaching which you obviously do not know.

[Inger]

Hello GCB!

Do you really think raw meat can cause cancer, even without fruits? (AGEs)

Don't you think, it could have been the meat and fruit combination (eaten on same day) that was no good?
As you got this lump at the back of your knee (from raw meat eating), was you eating fruits/sugar too, then?

How comes that meat tastes good to me all the time. If the instincto-theory really worked, I had to get tired of it someday..? (I have never been Vegan or such, always eating meat and fish, so my need for these should not be that big, how it comes thaat I feel better without any fruits at all..)
I don't even think of fruits anymore.

By the way, I used Kassia every morning for three years. Now I have the feeling, it just prevented the nutrients absorbing. No good.
I don't use it anymore.


Inger

[goodsamaritan]

How long was mango season 300 years ago?

Also, what indigenous tribes eat as much fruit as instinctos?

Mango season in my country before all this technology was confined to summer time March, April, May.
Another healer in my area taught me to follow the seasons.
The fruits taste best during their natural season.

This June is the start of the rambutan and lanzones season.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler maybe you did'nt notice but we were talking about sweet fruits, not at all about other plant parts

In contrast to sweet fruits, there is precisely absolutely no risk of overeating raw leafy parts or tubers because of their high plant defense chemicals content. No instincto or human ever seriously overate such parts of plants and my thesis is precisely that in this case our natural intrinsic or so-called "instinctive" attraction toward these plant parts is (and can be) too weak, quite the opposite as compared to sweet fruits where it is (and can be) too strong. Too strong or too weak as compared to what Burger or instincto dogma claims them to be. In this case of leafy plant parts environmental constraints forced our ancestors to eat them in larger quantities than intrinsic attraction or instinct would urge them to do since it was now really often the only food available all year round .

In other words that's precisely another confirmation of my point that falsifies instincto. The quantities of food eaten by our ancestors and relevant dietary balance was not just a matter of intrinsic attraction or repulsion or "instincts" but actually basically a matter of environmental constraints.  

  

Oh, sorry. I was just talking in general re the usual pro-ZC biased claims that plant-foods were rare in the tropics.

(Minor aside:- I seem to recall some claims by scientists that we are naturally attracted to fats and sugars precisely because they were more rarely available in the environment).

[Iguana]

How long was mango season 300 years ago?
Also, what indigenous tribes eat as much fruit as instinctos?

GS answered your first question. But there are not only mangoes as fruits. A short look at this List of culinary fruits is well worth a few seconds. Quote: "Many sorts of small fruit on this list are gathered from the wild, just as they were in Neolithic times."… and probably in Paleolithic times as well !

For the second question, nowadays-indigenous tribes all eat cooked food, so the comparison is distorted. Instinctos are not required to eat fruits! For example Diogene mentioned he ate exclusively meat for two months.

I cannot balance without fruits, but that could be personal.

[alphagruis]

(Minor aside:- I seem to recall some claims by scientists that we are naturally attracted to fats and sugars precisely because they were more rarely available in the environment).

Yes absolutely Tyler.

It's actually not a minor aside at all. It's precisely and exactly one central point in my falsification of instincto. Attraction of fat and sugar is as strong as it is to ensure our ancestors did not miss the relevant fairly rare foods in natural paleo environment and what limited the overeating of such foods in paleo times was by no means a mysterious "instinct" and encoded "instincto stop" but merely environmental constraints.

By the way this is actually a very general well known feature of order formation in complex self organized systems. Such order (here health and dietary balance) is an emergent phenomenon that is brought about by interplay of highly non linear positive feedback or autocatalytic processes (here strong gustary pleasure associated with eating fat or sugar) and drastic environmental constraints (here food availability) that prevent these processes to diverge (as they do more or less systematically in instincto) .  

This means obviously that contrary to what Burger "teaches" for instance here

http://www.rawtimes.com/anopsy1.html

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.

it is definitely and precisely not enough and by far "to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures" in order to ensure dietary balance and "body's actual needs".

In other words there is unfortunately no "instinct" or better in scientific words no such a simple ordering principle as claimed by Burger in quote above that still ensures or ever ensured in the past dietary balance and there was not even any need of it.

Again Burger wrongly assumes that natural selection must have led to and optimized such a subtle encoded principle in every organism or animal. Not every feature of a living organism has to be optimized by natural selection, things are a little bit more subtle than that.


  

[goodsamaritan]

I'm relatively new to all this and appreciate the debates.

Maybe we should move the instincto critiques to a separate thread?

Just as we let the Pro-Primal Diet thrive in their own section. Let's let Instincto thrive here.

[GCB]

author=Inger link=topic=211.msg37791#msg37791 date=1276819156
Do you really think raw meat can cause cancer, even without fruits? (AGEs) Don't you think, it could have been the meat and fruit combination (eaten on same day) that was no good?

It is always difficult to separate the variables. Is it the protein excess in itself, the more specific meats protein excess, or the combination with other molecules as consequence of an insufficient degradation? I'm just testing on myself to distinguish the things by experimenting. I leave always at least half an hour between the intake of animal sources of protein and vegetable’s intake to avoid the formation of AGE’s (along with others substances not yet identified which I more generally called "molecules foreign to the normal metabolic cycle"). Even in this condition, observation of the hyper-keratinisations immediately allows to see if there is an overload, for example small skins fragments which raise around the nails and become painful at the touch, cracks at the end of the fingers, warts which increase volume, layer of keratin on feet, neoplasic formations, etc.

As you got this lump at the back of your knee (from raw meat eating), were you eating fruits/sugar too, then?

At the time when I saw this tumour growing on the tendon at the exterior of the knee, I was experimenting to eat much meat (beef, porc and lamb), by seeking a clear instinctive stop in order to see if it existed. I did not take any precaution concerning associations, because at the time the issue of AGEs had not appeared yet.

How comes that meat tastes good to me all the time?

Are you eating wild game meat or meat from domestic animals such as beef, lamb or porc? The instinctive stop is extremely indistinct with meats of domesticated animals whereas it’s very clear with game meats (chamois, roe-deer, wild boar, marmot and so on, as well as with shellfish, crustaceans, wild fish, etc). Thus, try any game at least once to see whether you are really attracted by wild meat.

If the instincto-theory really worked, I had to get tired of it someday..?

Exactly! This phenomenon often occurs in the first years of instinctive nutrition. For example, I could eat kilos of honey, up to more than one kilo in a day without the least digestive nor other problem, this during perhaps two years. The same with pollen: an incredible diet of pollen, it appeared as attractive to me as lined biscuits but afterward the quantities fell. I feel now generally satisfied after some spoons of honey, the rare days when it attracts me by its smell. Pollen becomes dry and without taste sometimes after the first spoonful. The same happens with every food, provided it is sufficiently close to the primitive form. For example, durian: when I discovered this fruit, it appeared so attractive to me that I thought I’ll be able to eat it for ever in large quantities. Then the margin between what I call "luminous phase" and "unpleasant phase" became increasingly narrow. I eat it now with the same delight, but in moderate amount.

The problem is to interpret this phenomenon: first, the change shows a selfregulation (= instinct) exists. Then, it could be either a saturation due to the fact that, in the end, one cannot bear any more a certain absorptive total quantity of some toxic or antigenic components of a product. Or more probably, considering the whole picture provided by the observation of many people, a process of compensation, either of old deficiencies due to traditional food or a form of "reconstruction" of the body with natural substances, for example by stimulating the elimination of old foreign molecules thanks to a massive contribution of suitable molecules.

By the way, I used Kassia every morning for three years. Now I have the feeling, it just prevented the nutrients absorbing. No good. I don't use it anymore.

It is true that cassia fistula in excess can prevent the absorption of the nutrients, especially if we eat it in too large quantities or in an unbalanced way. But that occurs only if one eats it by principle, without taking account of the instinctive call. It is not difficult to identify the need for cassia with a chocolate taste making it very pleasant. I never saw it being harmful under these conditions. On the other hand, to do without it by principle can have disastrous consequences by preventing our body to eliminate some toxins through the intestinal tract. The toxins exit then often by other ways, in the form of "elimination crisis". There are in nature all kinds of plants which could have properties similar to cassia fistula, but we didn’t spot them yet. Therefore, to remove cassia locks the body in an environment where it cannot achieve its normal functions any more. More still if fruits are removed…
 

[KD]

Maybe we should move the instincto critiques to a separate thread?
Just as we let the Pro-Primal Diet thrive in their own section. Let's let Instincto thrive here.

GS, Part of this thread was a discussion in a totally non-instincto thread/journal that was moved by one of the main instincto posters to here. I don't think people are attacking the possibility of thriving on the diet or 'danger' like people sometimes do with PD, but specific points which apply in some ways to all of paleo/raw type eating. For instance, the issues in the other thread was about amounts of food and amounts of types of foods, being dictated by instinct, and that these are distorted by internal toxins and not at all to do with environment and distorted activity from aquireing food. Making the point that everyone else was basically 'wrong'. I think as alphagruis points out, it has way more to do with the environment, which is a general comment on natural diet and choice.

No proof of original paradise disputes that even wild animals do not eat this way in contained environments or really even in natural environments in choosing between two food choices within their diet range - completely based on the best nutrition. We just happen to be even more worse off due to deficiency and toxin which distorts ours desires but it doesn't define them as they in nature have their own distortions per circumstance. Looking at natural situations -in this case- has little value other than assumptions that beings always got 100% their best sources of nutrition in a balanced copious environment, which in itself does not alone disprove intellectual manipulation by a stronger intellect might be superior.

using chimps and trying to find their natural setting to see what they do is completely useless in disputing this, even if we have 100% the same requirements and ratios, you could do very simple experiments of controlled artificial circumstances which would cause chimps to eat away from optimal range with 100% their own choosing. Even if give an excess of their most abundantly required food, and bringing them to a food storehouse or market, they would not dismiss more fruits based on smell or taste, and roam around searching out their most needed nutrients. Especially if their specific nutrient needs were not even satisfied by what was there. Therefore even their natural balance which was outlined would be changed and would be worse off than other captive chimps fed high quality percentages of foods based in knowledge of their environment, and they would not refuse the foods in likely any order given.

[alphagruis]

No proof of original paradise disputes that even wild animals do not eat this way in contained environments or really even in natural environments in choosing between two food choices within their diet range - completely based on the best nutrition. We just happen to be even more worse off due to deficiency and toxin which distorts ours desires but it doesn't define them as they in nature have their own distortions per circumstance. Looking at natural situations -in this case- has little value other than assumptions that beings always got 100% their best sources of nutrition in a balanced copious environment, which in itself does not alone disprove intellectual manipulation by a stronger intellect might be superior.

Yes, very important point. In nature wild animals usually don't have to choose between different foods by smell and taste to supposedly (according to instincto dogma) find out which food is presently best for them and how much they have to eat just because it's rare that two or more different ones (in particular in case of meats, fish or fruits) are available simultaneously at the same spot. They eat or not what's available and how much and what they eat is definitely intertwinned with their daily hunting and/ or foraging activities and by no means just a matter of taste and smell or "instinctive stops".



     

[TylerDurden]

GS, I think it's  a good idea to split this topic into two threads, as the original thread was simply a question about what Instincto was all about, whereas this is now a thread about the pros and cons of Instincto. Both should stay in the Instincto forum, though, I think.

As for me, I find some of the ideas behind Instincto persuasive to some extent, purely because of my own experience. That is, my digestive system was so badly damaged by the time I went rawpalaeo, that I found that mono-eating was the best solution re digestion. It took some time before my digestion was flawless when mixing 2 different raw animal foods together, for example.

Then there was the raw dairy issue:- some years back, back when I was in my raw-dairy-phase, my mother(well we all  know how mothers are) mentioned how I constantly rejected the raw buffalo milk she offered to me as I was being weaned as an infant. This seemed to imply that my natural instincts warned me at the time that this, re taste/smell, was a particularly dangerous food for me. Unfortunately, constant pressure and exposure to the raw dairy meant that I quickly developed cravings for the stuff(cravings for the very foods one is allergic to are a common trait).

Another point is that I used to be assured by some that raw grassfed meats were as good as raw wild game, but I objected, as raw wild game had a far better, richer taste, generally speaking - I subsequently found,via Cordain etc., that raw wild game is inherently superior, nutrient-wise.

[GCB]

Mango season in my country before all this technology was confined to summer time March, April, May.

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.
 

This June is the start off the rambutan and lanzones season.

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.

Maybe we should move the instincto critiques to has separate thread?

It is true that this thread is named “Explain Instincto Diet Fully”, and that the object should be to explain how and why it functions. But how do want you to calm the detractors who cannot stand the idea that an alimentary instinct does exist?

[KD]

the point is even if animals have a natural stopping point with food, they don't when it is artificially controlled even if they are healthy.

Since actual criticisms about pure wild animals as example are not even being addressed at all, obviously the use of such instincts to overcome BOTH toxic inheritance AND unnatural environment, surplus of choice, and no requirement of prowess or ability in obtaining them, have still not been sufficiently explained.

in the case of chimps, many of these protein sources that make up the smaller part of their diet would be coming from insects and the like.  Wouldn't it then be that a human would likely salivate more at the nutrition of a large spider over that of wild bear meat or a deep ocean fish? which would prove difficult in obtaining especially if this so called optimal approach does not produce the greatest specimens in strength and speed even among the contemporary human race. Nevermind our ancestors no matter what diet they were on.

Stopping point in nature is totally different anyway with how any human today possibly eats, if a day of reaching that stopping point can be repeated again and again on store bought food, and even if as mentioned they do some kind of pretentious wild foods walk without predators. Frutarians make the same comments about shifting in flavors of food and yet switch to the same exact classifications when foods go out of season or begin to taste strange. One can say even pure frutarians are neglecting some instinct at that point to search out other types of foods, or are merely not well enough to have this sense, but they still arrive at a stopping point in eating, which according to them, becomes refined over time in a similar fashion in terms of how much to eat. of course they don't have the size, strength or activity level necessary if they were to run down wild game and certainly would continue choosing fruits on preference over grubs and things based on smell and taste. Unless you can actually run down an animal, how do you know what requirements exactly your nutrition is serving if they are sufficient for wellness or simply existing on artificial circumstances? Obviously people can eat all manner of ratios of foods and survive, it doesn't mean that the ratios even in nature are optimal. Some calorie restricted chimps and things fed higher % meat have lived longer.

[Paleo Donk]

Perhaps the thread has run its course where we can all take something from it. I think alphagruis' "falsifies instincto" comes across as too strong as you only need one minor point of contention to technically falsify one's way of eating. To me it seems clear that there is obviously an element of instincts that come into play when deciding what to eat and how often and its not wholly completely simply surviving on what is easiest available. I've seen lions kill other carnivores and leave the meat untouched even though it seems it would be beneficial in some way for the pride to eat the meat (perhaps not, animals usually know what they are doing). GCB also seems to make too strong of statement where he states that our instincts completely fail us ("extremely indistinct") when eating domesticated animals. Perhaps there is a middle ground.

For me, I think the emphasis on eating wild game is now enough to at least make a point in the future to attempt at securing it on a regular basis and I thank this thread for that.

[Iguana]

GS, I think it's  a good idea to split this topic into two threads, as the original thread was simply a question about what Instincto was all about, whereas this is now a thread about the pros and cons of Instincto. Both should stay in the Instincto forum, though, I think.

For me, explanations and critiques work fine together, clashes generating further clarifications and questionings. Critiques are welcome, since there would be no point in discussing between people already agreeing on everything.

Most of us agree on the main points and as far as I know, Alphagruis also agrees on the principle to eat raw, without proceeding, without grain, (also without dairy and mixing, still ?) as well as the “new model of the viral phenomenon”, the usefulness of bacteria sicknesses as GCB theorized it decades ago, and even that we should not ignore our alliestesics signals. In this case case, the divergences are minor.

[Inger]

GCB,

Are you eating wild game meat or meat from domestic animals such as beef, lamb or pork? The instinctive stop is extremely indistinct with meats of domesticated animals whereas it's very clear with game meats (chamois, roe-deer, wild boar, marmot and so on, as well as with shellfish, crustaceans, wild fish, etc). Thus, try any game at least once to see whether you are really attracted by wild meat.

I usually eat pastured beef, and wild caught fish, like halibut.
But it differs with wild meat. Deer I cant eat long time, then it tastes strange to me, same boar.
Elch I never get tired of.. Strange..?! Halibut is also wild, I don't get tired of it eather, I usually eat 150-200 gram per serving. Linden leaves I never get tired of, I love them. Every singel day.

What do you think about pig (also boar?) and cancer? Could there be a connection?
Why is it that so many traditions do not allow to eat pig.


When i eat Kassia I never used more than a teaspoon or two / day. I still have the feelings it somehow was not healthy for me. Especially not for my teeth's.  
It also soon can get a bulimic note, you eat too much / strange combinations, then just take Kassia and all is good (because it comes out fast the other way and you feel good again.. ).
I used it this way too myself back then, I just did not wanted to see it.

Somehow I also have the feeling it is no good to eat all these fruits etc. what naturally is not growing here in the north.
I come from Finland, and I feel so good on only animal foods - zero fruits. Could it be that for high fruit consumption to be healthy, you need a lot of strong sunshine, like in the tropics?
That's what I start to believe..

Inger

 

[goodsamaritan]

It’s in my turn to ask you a question: are there during the year, in the Philippines, periods without wild fruit?

No.  There are fruits all the time.  There will always be some fruit in season.  It is a never ending abundance of fruits in the Philippines.

Coconuts, bananas and papayas are always in season.

I notice me and my children have some sort of instinct for fruit and meat and we try to follow that.  Although these instincts may be right or wrong sometimes because we are not as 100% raw as is required for instincto (especially my children).

[Iguana]

the point is even if animals have a natural stopping point with food, they don't when it is artificially controlled even if they are healthy.

I’m not sure I catch your point. What do you mean by “artificially controlled”? Healthy or not, there’s an instinctive stop point for the intake of every stuff, even cooked, processed and mixed. The question occurs: is that stop happening after the optimal amount of a specific food has been ingested? Years of experiments with thousands of animals and people show it happens at the optimal point if (and only if ) the stuff is raw, unmixed, unprocessed and wild – except for vegetables which can be of cultivated varieties without problems.

Since actual criticisms about pure wild animals as example are not even being addressed at all, obviously the use of such instincts to overcome BOTH toxic inheritance AND unnatural environment, surplus of choice, and no requirement of prowess or ability in obtaining them, have still not been sufficiently explained.

Please tell what you would like to be explained. Is it the point below, originally from you?

Yes, very important point. In nature wild animals usually don't have to choose between different foods by smell and taste to supposedly (according to instincto dogma) find out which food is presently best for them and how much they have to eat just because it's rare that two or more different ones (in particular in case of meats, fish or fruits) are available simultaneously at the same spot. They eat or not what's available and how much and what they eat is definitely intertwinned with their daily hunting and/ or foraging activities and by no means just a matter of taste and smell or "instinctive stops".    

Of course, they can’t eat what is unavailable! When awake, they are quite often searching for something to eat. Doing so, they move around not only because, as you say, it's rare that two or more different food are available simultaneously at the same spot, but because there are plenty of spots where there’s no food at all. Animals don’t eat whatever is available, they eat only what is a food for them and that depend on
- their specie
- their actual state (very hungry or a little bit hungry, metabolic state, healthy or ill, old or young growing up).  

How do they know what is actually a food for them, since a particular stuff may be a food for an animal specie while it is a poison for another specie? A fraction of their knowledge can certainly be transmitted by their mother, but even animals having been separated early without any chance of getting trained by their mother know quite well what to eat and what not to eat.

It must be emphasized that the notion of food is relative. Most of the stuff found in the nature is no food for a carnivore, while for a goat there’s much to eat about anywhere over the Earth surface. Hell, how comes that carnivores do not eat what a deer eats? A cat, even separated before any training with his mother and grown up with rabbits won’t in anyway feed on grass. How do they know what is a food for their own specie? Training? Perhaps, for a part. Instinct for the most part.

That damned instinct has apparently for tools the senses of smell and taste. That stands true at least for the mammals, which all have and by a happy coincidence, the nose just over the mouth. Elephants even have an extremely long, flexible nose able to move around somewhat in search for food, constantly checking the smell of what will be ingested while the rest of the huge animal stands more or less still, high above the ground.
 

[KD]

I’m not sure I catch your point. What do you mean by “artificially controlled”?

I gave 4-5 examples of various situations over a number of posts detailing exactly what I mean by changing a wild animals circumstances to mimic modern humans. Perhaps not all of them are good, but at least one should give an idea of what I'm talking about.

Instead of looking at animal in their natural environment, to talk about how pure our instincts can become or return, you need to take the animals and give them the same artificial circumstances and choices and probably make them at minimum comparatively sedentary and atrophied, although that probably isn't even necessary. At least from my end, I'm not contesting animals have a specific range or food or use their instinct to decide between types of food and eat single foods till satisfied. In a nutshell, this is not news.

I've never said animals and humans do not have an innate instinct of what types of things to eat, only skepticism that this instinct causes them to eat an exact optimal percentage of foods or decipher between foods within that range as being better, worse or needed, especially when they are divorced from their environment AND especially when those choices are limited or increased beyond what is natural, or possibly obtainable.

My comment was and remains simple, if you take two types of food which are both compatible for an animal or a human, and take them out of their natural circumstances, the choice between them will NOT depend 100% on which has the best or most needed nutrition. And therefore the idea that our instincts lead us to choosing WITHIN THOSE RANGES the right kinds of foods and ammounts is false. Just having the choice makes far more difference than any internal blockage of instinct IMO and this is why I've cited animals with no mark of cooked food pollution given artificial circumstances. This is way more conclusive than trying to prove anything about our failings and deviations due to millennia of bad habits. Simply put, even within an animals natural diet choices, like a bear with honey, the most appealing thing might not be the most nutritious, and especially with contemporary humans the most nutritious OR the most appealing might not even be able to be obtained through their own capable means which greatly distorts both types and amounts.

If we are closer to chimps, we should not even be possibly eating things like large game meat and things, and certainly not in small percentages based on instincts about how much is necessary to fuel a body incapable of killing a bear due to inactivity, THAT is a distortion and will reflect how much one desires! perhaps we were scavengers and eaters of bugs like chimps, but if that is the case we should as humans relish the rotten foods and grubs, and spiders and deeper sources of nutrition founds in brains and kidneys and things over muscle meats and ocean fish, especially when we are ill or deficient. Similarly our instincts might also drive us to eating feces or mounting others of the same sex, which I'm not passing judgment on but might not be the best smelling or tasting of the options.

So at least from my end, no information about animals in their setting has any value to me in this theory. Of course animals will even smell their food, but as long as it passes whatever test it doesn't weigh if it carries all the nutrition it needs or the best choice at that moment, at that point it eats what is available, so given a completely altered landscape it could never know definitively that is was getting the best nutrition or a facsimile or that there was an artificial abundance of this or that.

[PaleoPhil]

If you do indeed have a little extra flab on the stomach, that would indicate that you were a little above your ideal weight, IMO.

But the rest of me is still fairly skeletal, though improved--thinner than your images. I'd hardly call 5'11+" and 135 lbs. overweight, would you? Besides, I'm not 100% convinced that having a little fat is so terrible and studies have been reporting that being too thin can actually be dangerous. Too many people seem obsessed with shedding every ounce of fat until they look like Death. I haven't found a way yet to add muscle without also adding a small amount of fat. I think it may be in part because of the insulin resistance you reasonably suggested I might have. I'd rather have a little fat than no muscle and I think it's probably more unhealthy to be anorexic-looking, and putting on some weight thrilled my physician and relatives. I'm up from my really skeletal low of 122 lbs, but I've dropped from my recent high of 140 lbs, which means that my relatives are going to start hassling me about being too thin again if they see me this way. Not that it bothers me, it's just a waste of time to have to go through that whole rigmarole of them making lectures before we can get on with life.

[TylerDurden]

Just look at the number of people who still claim to be "instinctos". There are presently probably not more than a few tens of them, worldwide. After more than 40 years since Burger invented it....     

Well, I would disagree as "Instinkto" is reasonably popular among followers of the rarer quirky diets in Germany, for example. And I remember hearing reports from raw-food-gatherings in the US, where it was mentioned that the Instinctos-dieters looked much healthier than the Primal Dieters(simply cutting out all raw dairy, avoiding raw veggie-juice, and preferring raw wild game to other raw meats appears to do wonders, IMO, even if many Instinctos seem to have overdone the raw-plant-food-intake).

[TylerDurden]

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

[alphagruis]

Well, I would disagree as "Instinkto" is reasonably popular among followers of the rarer quirky diets in Germany, for example. And I remember hearing reports from raw-food-gatherings in the US, where it was mentioned that the Instinctos-dieters looked much healthier than the Primal Dieters(simply cutting out all raw dairy, avoiding raw veggie-juice, and preferring raw wild game to other raw meats appears to do wonders, IMO, even if many Instinctos seem to have overdone the raw-plant-food-intake).

Tyler, I agree that instincto is fairly popular in Germany (and France) in the sense that many people heard about it and a sizable number of them even tried this diet yet very few succeeded to stay on it.

And those very few (as myself) who apparently succeeded actually do not practise instincto but just a form of raw paleo i.e. do not regulate "instinctively" their food intake as Burger claims them to do.

Yet I do not at all underestimate the tremendous outstanding role of instincto and Burger in popularizing and promoting the RAW PALEO concept and diet. Burger was aware of and worked out these ideas more than 40 years ago long before many others came to them in more recent years. Instincto in spite of its unfortunate label implies and is basically a RAW PALEO diet.

What I criticise sharply is that part of instincto which tells people they can regulate their food intake by means of an "instinct" based on olfactory and gustatory sensations. Roughly the stance "eat what smells and tastes goods and so long as it does so and don't bother about food composition, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, omega 3 fatty acids  etc". That part is just pseudoscience and unfortunately eventually very dangerous.

The fact is that unfortunately no such simple principle of dietary balance actually exists and that we have to find out and learn how and what to eat to be healthy.

Please notice also that the superiority of wild game meat can be understood in simple terms of healthier diet, life and also sharper naturel selection constraints in the wild as compared to domesticated animals. No need to invoke the dodgy concept of "better adapted instincts" in this respect. 

 

[GCB]

I usually eat pastured beef

Ok for the pastured beef, but two questions remain open: how is this meat after (or right before) slaughter treated? How do you eat it? All kinds of reasons can make that the organoleptic characteristics of the meat are altered (for example mechanical treatment to make it more tender, grinding,  addition of a little salt, too systematically mixing fat and flesh, etc). It is enough to modify a little the organoleptic characteritics of the meat for the alliesthesic mechanisms do not function normally anymore. One can then be accustomed to eat a food very frequently while the body doesn’t have any need for it. The danger is double: on one hand overload in some nutrients, on the other hand a blocking to other foodstuff may occur.

A protein overload is particularly dangerous because of the interactions with the immune system, knowing that the surplus molecules, badly degraded, keep their antigenic structures. The reactions can be of two principal types: a food intolerance of allergic type, or a tolerance which settles with the long-term repetition, i.e. the immune system will not react any more to certain antigen classes close to bovine molecules. It is in my opinion this tolerance (or more exactly the whole lot of these tolerances induced by all kinds of food molecules badly degraded under effect of digestive or metabolic overloads) is partly responsible for the immunity failures which leave the field free to the proliferation of abnormal cells, therefore to cancer.

and wild caught fish, like halibut.

According to what I could very often note, wild fish takes a crippling flavor when a protein overload induced by an overload of meat is present. I fear that your halibut is also victim of an unspecified treatment, for example irradiation, or simply of salt for the conservation.

But it differs with wild meat. Deer I cant eat long time, then it tastes strange to me, same boar.

Absolutely: wild game meat quickly gets a strange taste, which corresponds to the instinctive stop. The rule which has been empirically set is that one should eat only wild meat and only if it is marvelously tasty, just like seasoned (what I call the “luminous phase”). As soon as it takes a strong and unattractive “wild game” savor, it is quite simply that it is useless or harmful.

Elk I never get tired of.. Strange..?! Halibut is also wild, I don't get tired of it eather, I usually eat 150-200 gram per serving.  

Check the processes these products are subjected to. They are certainly denatured for an unspecified reason. It is a rule that has always been checked: a product which has a “bottomless well” effect, i.e. one can consume it in excess without it becoming repulsive (or at least not attracting) is a denatured product. You should tell me your total intake of proteins on average per day if you want me to get a better grasp of where you stand, nutritionally speaking.

Linden leaves I never get tired of, I love them. Every singel day.

A repetitive fondness for a nonfood plant precisely testifies to a permanent disorder, which could be due to a systematic protein’s overload. Normally, after having ingested some a few days, the linden leaves should appear detestable to you. Unless, once again, that you bought them in the traditional circuits, where they are very generally hot dried.

What do you think about pig (also boar?) and cancer? Could there be a connection?
Why is it that so many traditions do not allow to eat pig.

The problem is not different of the other wild meats: Care should be taken that the animals live in free range and do not receive a denatured food which could distort the taste of the meat.

Why is it that so many traditions do not allow to eat pig.

To my knowledge this tradition comes from the Jewish religion. It could be explained by the fact why the Jews nourished their pigs with their kitchen left overs. It was then not difficult for them to notice some disorders of behavior in the consumers, the abnormal molecules concentrated in the meat causing an anomalous excitation of the nervous system, for example an aggressiveness or sexual excitation excess, therefore a difficulty to obey the Ten Commands…

When i eat Kassia I never used more than a teaspoon or two / day. I still have the feelings it somehow was not healthy for me. Especially not for my teeth's.

One or two teaspoons can be an excess, if your body does not need any cassia this day. The absolute quantity does not make sense since it does not take account of the real needs of the body. Excess starts at the time one absorbs a quantity exceeding the need (or digestive potential). Perhaps there are days when you would need carob, or another antidiarrhea

It also soon can get a bulimic note, you eat too much / strange combinations, then just take Kassia and all is good (because it comes out fast the other way and you feel good again.. ). I used it this way too myself back then, I just did not wanted to see it.

Indeed, a vicious circle can settle: alimentary errors --> excess of cassia --> new nutritional error, etc. It is enough  to avoid alimentary errors, and to respect with cassia as with the other products the indications of the sensory organs.

Somehow I also have the feeling it is no good to eat all these fruits etc. what naturally is not growing here in the north.

I thought the same thing during years, then experiments led me to reverse the idea: we evolved from primates which would have adapted during million years to tropical countries, so that an exotic choice of products compensates for the scarcity of adequate products in our current habitat (which would probably never have been possible without the use of fire).

I come from Finland, and I feel so good on only animal foods - zero fruits. Could it be that for high fruit consumption to be healthy, you need a lot of strong sunshine, like in the tropics?

The reasoning has something satisfactory: the products found where one live should be eaten. But nothing says that in a few thousands years we adapted physiologically to the Scandinavian region. We likely live in places where the products which should eat do not grow…

[Inger]

Ok for the pastured beef, but two questions remain open: how is this meat after (or right before) slaughter treated? How do you eat it? All kinds of reasons can make that the organoleptic characteristics of the meat are altered (for example mechanical treatment to make it more tender, grinding,  addition of a little salt, too systematically mixing fat and flesh, etc). It is enough to modify a little the organoleptic characteritics of the meat for the alliesthesic mechanisms do not function normally anymore. One can then be accustomed to eat a food very frequently while the body doesn’t have any need for it. The danger is double: on one hand overload in some nutrients, on the other hand a blocking to other foodstuff may occur.

I eat it in different ways.
Often just sliced directly from slab, eating it pure and cold, but I also airdry it sometimes, like ground beef burgers airdried for 12 hours, or jerky. Love them. Sometimes I make beef tartar.
Seldom I fry it rare (rather "blue" ) in the pan, this could also happend if I eat out. I always feel great after eating meat, it is so strange! Feel just good.
Oh, I like aged meat too. I often age it for a week or more in the fridge.

I eat about 500 grams to 1 kg meat a day, about 90-160 grams pure protein maybe.
My Halibut is wildcaught and fresh, not frozen etc. or salted. I always eat it plain, love the fatty taste.

A protein overload is particularly dangerous because of the interactions with the immune system, knowing that the surplus molecules, badly degraded, keep their antigenic structures. The reactions can be of two principal types: a food intolerance of allergic type, or a tolerance which settles with the long-term repetition, i.e. the immune system will not react any more to certain antigen classes close to bovine molecules. It is in my opinion this tolerance (or more exactly the whole lot of these tolerances induced by all kinds of food molecules badly degraded under effect of digestive or metabolic overloads) is partly responsible for the immunity failures which leave the field free to the proliferation of abnormal cells, therefore to cancer.

I try to follow my body every day to see if I get some symptoms that are no good, but still nothing there.
Only good things happend, like my skin is better, my teeths, my gums never bleed anymore not even after flossing!
I feel calm and strong. Satisfied.  
I also was taking bloodtest a few weeks ago, they was abslot perfect, also my B12 status was very good and vit.D too!
My cholesterol-levels was totally fine, high cholesterol, but a lot of HDL and my triglycerides was really low. Perfect.
 

Absolutely: wild game meat quickly gets a strange taste, which corresponds to the instinctive stop. The rule which has been empirically set is that one should eat only wild meat and only if it is marvelously tasty, just like seasoned (what I call the “luminous phase”). As soon as it takes a strong and unattractive “wild game” savor, it is quite simply that it is useless or harmful.
 

Yeah, I never continue eating if strange tasting, that's for sure.
I was ordering Entrecote from Orkos sometimes, I never got tired of that eather..

A repetitive fondness for a nonfood plant precisely testifies to a permanent disorder, which could be due to a systematic protein's overload. Normally, after having ingested some a few days, the linden leaves should appear detestable to you. Unless, once again, that you bought them in the traditional circuits, where they are very generally hot dried.

Oh, no, it is not that I am craving Linden-leaves..   I just eat them if I am out walking, just because they are there and for free. They are tasty too, and I eat some other wild edibles like nettles etc. too but just a little.
But Linden-leaves I can use for food, they are so mild and soft. That's when there is only a little money back for food, then I eat them in larger quantities..
 

To my knowledge this tradition comes from the Jewish religion. It could be explained by the fact why the Jews nourished their pigs with their kitchen left overs. It was then not difficult for them to notice some disorders of behavior in the consumers, the abnormal molecules concentrated in the meat causing an anomalous excitation of the nervous system, for example an aggressiveness or sexual excitation excess, therefore a difficulty to obey the Ten Commands…
 

Yes, that must be why pork is no good..  eating kitchen leftovers. No wonder the meat stinks.

One or two teaspoons can be an excess, if your body does not need any cassia this day. The absolute quantity does not make sense since it does not take account of the real needs of the body. Excess starts at the time one absorbs a quantity exceeding the need (or digestive potential). Perhaps there are days when you would need carob, or another antidiarrhea

Hm. But it tasted good back then. Sweet. I liked it.
Now I can eat it no more.. I have some in my fridge and when I tried it it was so ugly-sweet.. No thanks.

I thought the same thing during years, then experiments led me to reverse the idea: we evolved from primates which would have adapted during million years to tropical countries, so that an exotic choice of products compensates for the scarcity of adequate products in our current habitat (which would probably never have been possible without the use of fire).

But we also evolved from Cro-Magnon, and have Neanderthal-genes in us too. They was eating mostly meat..
What do you think?
Aren't we used to it? That is what my body tells me..

The reasoning has something satisfactory: the products found where one live should be eaten. But nothing says that in a few thousands years we adapted physiologically to the Scandinavian region. We likely live in places where the products which should eat do not grow…

Yeah. But I believe I have extremely much of the Neanderthal-genes..
They lived in the North, don't they?

Inger