Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2

[Iguana]

I like fruits myself.
Which fruits do long term Instinctos recommend?
Any reviews or remarks per fruit?

I wouldn’t recommend any particular fruit for everybody in every case, that would be contrary to the fact that every person is different and in a varying state as well. The principle is just to eat good smelling fruits as long as they are tasty, and if there’s a choice between different fruits, to choose the one having the best smell, which generally indicates it’ll have the best taste too. It’s not the smell intensity which is important, but whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. For example avocado’s smell is barely perceptible, but still can be felt when we peel it off.
   
However, it’s always much preferable to choose the wildest varieties and avoid as much as possible the ones having been subject to hybridization and/or severe artificial selection, such as Golden Delicious apple, seedless oranges and watermelons, MornThong durian and son on. These not only remain good when our needs are more than fulfilled (and may easily cause an overload), but they are also the most intensively sprayed with pesticides. Most fruits on supermarkets stalls are awful.

It’s much better to eat fruits we find in the nature, or else the cheapest, small ugly looking ones sold on farmers markets. “Overripe” (just ripe for us!) fruits or having some visual defects are very often the best while being the cheapest. They are often even given for free, apparently because people eating cooked food usually don’t like well ripe fruits, being in constant overload in carbs due to their high consumption of industrial sugar, bread and cooked cereals.

I like very much to eat figs straight on the trees or self gathered for free; the overripe ones with sometimes just a bit of alcohol or half dried on the tree can be delightful for me. Overripe pineapples, leeches and rambutans can also ferment in a delicious way. Cempedaks, jackfruits and wild varieties of durian are very ancient fruits, very nutritious and fulfilling. Here in south of France, the apricot’s season has come just now. It’s a delicious fruit when well ripe; I buy those sold “to make jam” in crates at very low price.  

[GCB]

In opposition to some current allegations ,  instinctive nutrition is perfectly possible with what’s available locally, and is often practiced this way. Myself as well as my family and all the first Swiss instinctos practiced exclusively with the products of the country during all the initial years.

It was even routinely practiced by the Inuits, which ate raw whale and raw seal plus some plants when they could find them. They fared better with this restricted food range more or less instinctively eaten than with the modern western diet they recently adopted. This is of course more true for instinctos limited to local food in areas rich in edible plants!

It is only less intense in enjoyment, satisfactions and also ways more difficult for ailing Westerners having been supplied all their life with Brazilian cane sugar and coffee, Sri Lankan tea, Bulgarian yogurt, Taiwan canned tuna fish, US or Ukrainian wheat and New Zealand butter than without exclusion of tropical fruits to which our sense of taste is better adapted.  

[GCB]

Could a moderator edit my message #22 in this way, since the time during which I could do it myself is elapsed:
Personally, I stick to the facts:  the instinctive nutrition such as I defined it, by taking account of the indications of all the sensory perceptions, allows to obtain an optimal nutritional balance.

[goodsamaritan]

Iguana would know better how to edit it.

[KD]

GCB, the problem is you have massive contradictions going through your posts.

You just finished saying that limited meat diets were not ideal because we have a fairly solid relationships to chimps that requires higher ranges of carbohydrates to function optimally (which I believe is a scientific observation, no matter how much instincto 'instincts' magically reach that ratio of modern-hybrid fruit love). And now you are using limited diets as a defense that basically says :well people do just fine, which is not the same as providing the absolute best health over the wisdom and practices of others. Also you have said in this thread that since Inger lives in an area in which we are not destined to live, her sensations to eat what is locally around her is also a distortion. And yet both you and Iguanna (who actually used the coconuts and fish tribe as an example neglecting that they ate cooked foods) keep insisting that it results everywhere and for every person in the optimal ways over any decision making EVEN now stating when one ignores tropical fruits - which you have already mentioned are the most conducive for nutrition. This is not even remotely possible. Even of the instinctos in existence there is no way they are all have optimal intakes that couldn't be improved upon with access or are distorted by what is not available. So basically for Inger in order to reset to the ratio of chimps which has been institutionally proven, she would have to force herself to eat like an instincto and eat a large portion of fruit that is not available where she lives to reset her instincts into eating more fruit because that is what our instinctive ancestors do?

All this comes down to along with the data you posted with massive weight detriment that there is a un cared about discrepancy between thriving and existing. Its not even possible per your own theory that a person living in Switzerland (where traditional peoples certainly did not eat much fruit) and choosing between a handful of foods would have a chance at the nutrition of someone living in a tropical environment and hunting their own game and eating fruits freshly fallen (or rotting or whatever level of fermentation one prefers). Yet they could still be both optimally following instincto? And if someone is shipping meat and produce, they are clearly designing their diet based on their existing patterns. and not at all being in the same grouping as those who lived in a pure environment and could sustain their own food through their own vitality and skill and and still would not choose those hardships over 'positive' or 'negative' artificial contributions or would thrive through modern blight with those same habits in removed conditions.

[GCB]

Hi KD,

Things are not so complicated: an ideal instincto practice is in fact an abstraction, as an ideal circle is never realized anywhere. Yet, we can draw a circle more or less accurately, according to the pencil and the instruments available: each version is an approximation of the perfect circle, but the wheel rolls even if its tire presents some imperfections.

It’s the same in nutrition: quality of the practice depends on the available foodstuffs range, but it still works within a narrower frame.

Imperfections don't change anything to the basic problem. According to what I’ve been able to experience, a choice of fruits from anywhere (as well as other foodstuffs) as broad as possible, selected by their odor and carefully limited by the alliesthesic mechanisms provides better results than a choice limited to a few foodstuffs available nearby. We could observe the difference in cases of severe pathology. But both approaches provide already large benefits comparatively to processed and mixed raw foodstuffs diet, which doesn’t allows a proper instinctive choice (particularly regarding the inflammatory trend, which is the key to many malfunctions).

In short: it’s not because an ideal and perfect instincto is not feasible that a practical implementation in more or less restrictive conditions would be null and void. The big differences begin when we season, mix, grind, cook, introduce dairy and cereals, etc. There is a huge gap between traditional cooking and usual paleo diet with processed and mixed foodstuffs, a large gap between such a paleo diet and instincto, a little gap between instinctive nutrition and instinctotherapy, the latter bringing more precision in the nutritional balance and more diversity in the choice.

[majormark]

What happens if a person has some health issues which retards some of the sensory perceptions? Wouldn't those perceptions be even more necessary in such a case?

For example, when I get a flu, I tend to loose my sense of smell due to runny nose, inflammation etc.

[Hanna]

Hi gcb!

Thank you very much for answering the question posed by Inger. I hope you will answer further questions!

When (and where) do you think lived the last ancestor of us eating raw?

>>it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa.

From where should mankind originate if not from Africa? Could you please give more details?

>>They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.

But they cooked  their  plants partly.

>>We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists.

What migrations do you mean - when did they take place?

>>considering the different preservation time of various food.

I didn´t understand that (perhaps because of my bad english, sorry). What do you mean with preservation time in this context?

>>The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.

But the fruit chimps and bonobos eat are mostly uneatable for us, I read. And our ancestors were no longer optimally adapted to a life in the rainforests (with fruits high in the trees); they were adapted to a life in the savannah, where there were tubers to be cooked and game...I read.

>>there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans.

But there ARE diffences (small intestine more extended, as far as I remember) - and the teeth of humans are smaller. We are e.g. no longer adapted to eat leaves like the chimpanzees and we couldn´t eat the fruits eaten by them.

Hi all,

Writing in English is a bit difficult for me. If you don´t understand me, please let me know . And if you want to correct my English, I will be pleased.

[KD]

the point then is someone can draw a better circle with a tool even as basic as a piece of string, their finger and knowledge of geometry, and wheel carved out otherwise by a template drawing done by a primitive or monkey by such an estimation would not roll efficiently and would not be superior to a modern produced wheel. the question isn't whether one does the best they can with their circumstances as everyone on the planet is currently doing this, but whether the tools provided in nature (or improved upon by instinctotherapy) and are greatest desire actually surpass the type of knowledge that is acquired in research and experiences of peers like this site as far as making the BEST dietary choices and yielding the BEST results.

I've never said the practice is null and void, only that you are moving back and forth using contradictory information to prove its superior in these imperfect situations seeing especially since now there is a 'large gap' between a raw paleo diet and an instincto diet, which by many definitions here excludes and accepts the same types of foods. If this is true, the results should manifest in superiority no matter the practitioner. Mostly its the more obvious, that if there is a range in nutrition amongst instinctos depending on availability, and most foods are basically on demand at their fingertips (in accordance with budget), than instincto is not always making the best choices within our situations and choices.  Otherwise there would never be a choice made to choose a inferior fruit or animal food, the desire would always be somewhere else for that perfect food, so clearly there is a compromise based on thoughts and modern knowledge, which is further affected by the fact that we have a major security around these foods constant availability that animals do not have and affecting our choices and desires for things that might not be so abundant. But I won't go into that again...

when instincto is being used in other threads to rationalize advice given to a 'raw paleo' about not eating a egg white one day based on smell and eating it another when it does appeal, especially when its admitted that these instinctive decisions don't pop into use for years of practice, its credibility in terms of trumping basic experience and science falls short. Whether a person many years on such a diet can approximate a survivable ratio of whites to yolks is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.

It’s the same in nutrition: quality of the practice depends on the available foodstuffs range, but it still works within a narrower frame.

Imperfections don't change anything to the basic problem. According to what I’ve been able to experience, a choice of fruits from anywhere (as well as other foodstuffs) as broad as possible, selected by their odor and carefully limited by the alliesthesic mechanisms provides better results than a choice limited to a few foodstuffs available nearby.

[KD]

in other words, [I tried to make this point earlier] if someone is happily instinctively choosing between their local apples and pears and tree nuts and grow their own lettuce and eat the neighbors cow and pork or whatever in proportions based on instinct (which arguably could be a very good diet) yet artificially given the choice of tropical fruits and coconuts and wild fish or game they could also according to you be getting a truer range of our ideal minerals and vitamins, how could instincto be credited with always making the best choices to eat? Even given all these choices, how does it account for still neglecting various organs like brain and insects and other traditionally eaten foods in preference to muscle meats esp. All this esp.over people that actively sought out such food sources based on science and experiences of others?

[Hanna]

I think, we are partly adapted to cooked food. As human individuals eating exclusively raw foods, we need nutrient/energy-dense, relatively easily digestible foods without many antinutrients etc. - that is, food comparable with cooked food. As it isn´t easy for us to find enough and sufficiently varied food of this kind (provided we don´t want to eat mainly meat), we import our raw food from all over the world. If we were apes, we could go out and eat the leaves on the trees without being picky. And this kind of food would make up a substantial part of our diet. As human individuals eating exclusively raw foods, it´s not so easy for us; we have to find (or have to grow) special kinds of green plants and of vegetable edible for us in larger quantities, and that also applies to fruit. And certainly we need more energy-dense food than a chimp. Couldn´t this be an explanation for the fact that we, as instinctos, are (or have to be) picky in our food choice?

[GCB]

Hanna, Majormark, KD : I’m quite busy these days, so please be patient till I find the time to answer your pertinent remarks and questions.

[GCB]

What happens if a person has some health issues which retards some of the sensory perceptions? Wouldn't those perceptions be even more necessary in such a case?
For example, when I get a flu, I tend to loose my sense of smell due to runny nose, inflammation etc.

It’s uncommon that the senses of smell and taste are altered, for an easily understandable reason: an animal having lost his sense of smell is no longer able to feed properly in the wild. Its capabilities drops and it becomes an easy prey for predators. So there was a strong selection pressure on the alimentary regulation system and it is particularly resistant to disease. For example, there are many more deaf or blind than anosmic people.

But even in case of total anosmia (loss of smell), there are ways to get a minimal regulation using the sense of taste. The balance is of course not as good, but remains better than nothing.

During a flu, the smelling ability is indeed inhibited, but experience has shown that appropriate foodstuffs are nevertheless easily detected if conducive to healing  (eg fruits rich in vitamin C as citrus fruit). It is as though nature had intended that partial fasting was useful...

Anyway, in case of flu it suffices to ask our senses with a selection of foodstuffs to find those best suited, in spite of a blocked nose.

[GCB]

Writing in English is a bit difficult for me. If you don´t understand me, please let me know . And if you want to correct my English, I will be pleased.

Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !

[KD]

GCB, before you edited your comment you pointed out that my writing is pretty dense and confusing.
I'll try to break down what I wrote into sound bytes:

- the circle point I hope was quite readable, its quite clear that:

----exchange of information improves on natural capabilities especially when divorced from natural paradigms.

----As soon as a tool becomes necessary, instinct pales in comparison to knowledge in terms of getting the most efficient product.

- essentially your abstraction example was a misreading and an attempt to stretch what I'm saying to talk about some kind of perfect idealization of health that could be shrugged off or slipped out of.

---- all one needs to focus on is if the nutrition arrived at though the alimentary mechanism is the best for any individual over all other methods that currently exist on the planet accessible to all - given the same food choices and for whatever results they desire.

- in other words: not at all in comparison to how healthy a person can be in an abstract sense, which seems to be closer to the realm of instincts than the knowledge I am supporting.

- I don't have to attack basic elements of the alimentary mechanism because I don't dispute that it exists

---- just because we have signals that we may refine that tell us we have eaten too much of one food does not mean that amount was necessary or that we ate the healthiest food we needed.

- It is my opinion you have majorly slipped up in admitting people work with narrow ranges of food both in terms of primitives and modern instinctos.

----this suggests further all of what I have said about animals
----what it comes down to is that humans and animals largely do not care about what they eat as long as its acceptable foodstuffs

- you said you know of instinctos that do not eat tropical fruits, yet you insist that the largest range of food no matter how accesible in nature in those selections is best.

---- Elsewhere you basically make the point that tropical fruits are what we are most suited for

---- its also been admitted that people may reject things like insects and many organs which do still exist on the planet as foodstuffs.

----- this is based on a civilized repulsion towards those foods even though we know they can have higher more suitable nutrients per experience and science.

----- if people are still repulsed by these foods, their mechanisms are clearly still distorted by artificial tasting sweet foods and meats that require no effort to enjoy merely their 'tastier' components.

- by default there are people that are practicing instincto, deciding  on what to eat based on a narrow pre made decision of being closer to chimps

------ and yet not even eating like a chimp at all in including domesticated meats and wild game they cannot obtain themselves with weak bodies.

----- within instincto it is therefore possible to choose foods like deep ocean fish over stuff we might have in our backyard which would be appealing to a chimp.

------ if the fish is more appealing and smells of food obviously our senses do not detect our most biologically appropriate foods but are picked due to a variety of potentially superficial factors that have dubious ties to the highest nutrition.

------ This has more or less been discussed already. The kicker now is that you say even within instinctos they can be choosing or excluding things and yet still according to them following their highest instincts from day to day. This is impossible and irreconcilable with the notion that instincts always pick the most needed foodstuffs and neglect unnecessary foodstuffs

------ Also, obviously you cannot make the best choices based on desire if you are already categorizing what you want to eat, and the narrower the range of foods selected clearly has an impact on what is finally chosen.

- since so much is available at our finger tips, even the many foods people end up choosing that end up on the table can't possibly be the best choice in comparison to all other choices.

- because we have security towards obtaining a constant flow of food sources, this also greatly distorts what we eat and what we choose to neglect because we believer it will be there in the future.

- in short there is nothing that proves this approach could be any healthier or more nutritionally sound than one punched up on paper based on science and tacked to a wall, even admittedly that one could manage to be 'driven' to a largely complete diet that meets government minimal standards and so forth.

In this respect there is hardley a  'large gap' between a raw paleo diet and an instincto diet, which by many definitions here excludes and accepts the same types of foods. Other than ones possible fettered desire on RPD in liu of observed and experienced problematic results in following them in our current state of health and environment.

[GCB]

Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !

Möchten Sie mir bitte zuerst erklären, warum Sie Jahre lang keine tierische Produkte einnahmen ? Unter welchem Einfluss standen Sie am Anfang Ihrer Instinkto diät ? Ich werde so besser antworten können.

[Hanna]

Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !

Hallo gcb,

Das freut mich sehr, dass ich Deutsch sprechen "darf"!

Wann (und wo) lebte deiner Ansicht nach der letzte unserer Vorfahren, der sich ausschließlich von Rohkost ernährte?

>>it is unknown if mankind, nutritionally speaking; originates in Africa.

Wenn der Mensch seinen Ursprung nicht Afrika hat - woher sollte er sonst stammen? Ich würde mich über mehr Einzelheiten freuen!

>>They eat indeed meat, but also a big part of plants.

Die Buschmänner koch(t)en ihre pflanzliche Nahrung aber teilweise.

>>We know now that in these prehistoric times, there was a handful of migrations not expressly known by paleontologists.

Welche Wanderungen meintest du und wann sollen sie stattgefunden haben?

>>considering the different preservation time of various food.

Ich verstand nicht, was du im Kontext mit "preservation time" meintest.

>>The genetically closest to us like chimps and bonobos include in particular a large part of fruits in their diet.

Die meisten Früchte, die Schimpansen essen, sollen ungenießbar für uns sein. Unsere menschlichen Vorfahren waren, anders als die Affen, an das Leben im Regenwald nicht mehr optimal angepasst (wo die Früchte sich hoch in den Bäumen befinden). Sie hatten sich an ein Leben in der Savanne angepasst, wo es Wurzeln und Knollen gab, die man kochen konnte. Und Tiere.

>>there is a great similarity between the characteristics of chimpanzees and humans.

Es gibt aber durchaus Unterschiede zwischen dem Verdauungssystem des Schimpansen und unserem Verdauungssystem. Wir haben z. B. einen längeren Dünndarm und einen kürzeren Dickdarm als der Schimpanse. Auch sind die Zähne der Menschen kleiner. Wir sind nicht mehr an den Verzehr der Blätter angepasst, die von Schimpansen verzehrt werden, und erst recht nicht an die MENGEN von Blättern, die von Schimpansen verzehrt werden. Auch die von ihnen verzehrten bitteren Früchte könnten wir nicht essen.

(Ich bin jedoch kein Biologe o. ä. und hoffe daher, nichts Falsches zu behaupten.)

- - - - -

Meiner Ansicht nach sind wir an Kochkost teilweise genetisch angepasst. Als Rohköstler benötigen wir daher Nahrung, die (1) Kalorien bzw. Nährstoffe in großer Dichte enthält, (2) relativ leicht verdaulich ist und (3) nicht allzu viele Antinutritiva enthält. (Antinutritiva - pflanzliche Abwehrstoffe - werden durch die Verarbeitung und Zubereitung der Nahrung sowie durch Züchtung eliminiert bzw. reduziert.) Wir benötigen also Nahrung, die der gekochten und verarbeiteten Nahrung vergleichbar ist. Da wir uns als Rohköstler auf rohe Nahrung (und als Instinctos zudem auf unverarbeitete Nahrung) beschränken, ist es für uns nicht leicht, genügend Lebensmittel zu finden, die die genannten drei Kriterien erfüllen und zudem hinreichend Abwechslung bieten. Diese Schwierigkeit ist wohl der Grund dafür, dass Rohkost aus aller Welt auf unserem Speisezettel steht und wir sie sogar eigens einfliegen lassen. Am unkompliziertesten wäre vermutlich eine Rohkost, die primär auf Fleisch basiert.

Wären wir Menschenaffen, dann wäre unsere Ernährung wesentlich einfacher und weniger umständlich. Wir bräuchten nicht so wählerisch zu sein, wie wir es als Menschen sein müssen. Wir bräuchten z. B. nicht nach essbaren Kräutern zu suchen oder Gemüse anzupflanzen; es würde genügen, die Blätter der nächstbesten Bäume abzugrasen. Ähnliches würde für Früchte gelten. Ich las, dass die Früchte, die Schimpansen täglich essen, für uns Menschen nicht genießbar sind. Als Rohköstler, die sich nicht hauptsächlich von Fleisch ernähren, sind wir auf Früchte angewiesen, die in ausreichend großer Menge für uns genießbar (und verdaulich) sind. Zudem scheinen wir Kalorien in konzentrierterer Form als die Schimpansen zu benötigen.

Könnte somit nicht unsere Anpassung an Kochkost der Grund dafür sein, dass wir als Rohköstler bei unserer Nahrungswahl weit wählerischer sind (oder sein müssen) als Kochköstler oder die Menschenaffen?

Ich selbst esse seit fast 10 Jahren instinktive Rohkost und habe ihr viel zu verdanken.

[Hanna]

Ich aß nicht die ganze Zeit über 100% vegan. Für meine weitgehend vegane Ernährung gab es wohl mehrere Gründe:

(1) Eine Zeitlang hatte ich mit größter Wonne Fisch gegessen. Dann las bzw. hörte ich, dass er stark mit Quecksilber belastet ist, und strich ihn zunächst von meinem Speisezettel. Noch immer meide ich stark belastete Arten wie Thunfisch und Schwertfisch.
(2) Fleisch sperrte bei mir rasch, auch in gereiftem Zustand. Dies ist noch heute so, obwohl mir ansonsten vieles schmeckt, das anderen nur Entsetzen einjagt (Hirn z. B. ). Bis zu Sperre schmeckte mir das Fleisch oft gut. Lange (über Jahre) gereiften, luftgetrockneten und gesalzenen Schinken kann ich problemlos essen; er bekommt mir auch gut und löst keine "Entgiftungen" aus . Gesalzenes Gehacktes kann ich ebenfalls essen; es bekommt mir aber nicht.
(3) Mit Sicherheit war ich von der rohveganen Propaganda beeinflusst und insbesondere von den Urköstlern.
(4) Leber und Fisch mochte ich nur frisch. Ich konnte sie daher nicht lagern und testete sie (aus Bequemlichkeit) eher selten. Nüsse waren immer verfügbar.
(5) Eine Zeitlang sperrte selbst Fisch hartnäckig, vielleicht weil ich relativ viele Nüsse aß. Ich ließ Nüsse dann erst einmal fort, woraufhin mir der Fisch wiederum zu schmecken begann.

Meine Rohkosternährung war praktisch von Anfang an von deinem Buch "inspiriert" gewesen. Dieses hatte mir besser gefallen als andere Rohkostbücher.

[Hanna]

Perhaps alphagruis and gcb could agree that the alimentary instinct, defined by the existence (and usefulness) of alliesthetic phemonena, is not PERFECT? Perhaps too many "instinctos" believe that the instinct is perfect and therefore eat too careless (for example fruit) instead of learning from experience? I think that especially the belief in "detoxification" is detrimental in this respect because negative effects of eating habits are readily attributed to detoxification. I know, for example, that too much fruit has a detrimental effect on my health, because my experience told me (e. g. the recurrence of allergic symptoms in case of too high consumption of fruit). Perhaps it´s often safer to pay attention to experience  than to rely on instinctive signals?

[GCB]

Guten Tag, Hanna !
Die beste Lösung wäre, Sie schreiben Ihre Posts in zwei Sprachen : für mich selbst wäre das viel leichter, da ich deutsch viel besser kann als englisch. Sogar für das hierige, die deutsche Übersetzung könnte mir helfen, Sie genauer zu verstehen.
Danke !

Nur deutsch würde aber alle Gäste entmutigen...

Allerdings bin ich im Moment überbeansprucht, und für einige Tage unterwegs, also noch ein Bisschen Geduld...

Bis bald!

[Hanna]

Sorry that I wrote one post only in German. Gcb asked me why I ate little meat for a long time. Some reasons were

- the problem of mercury in fish (I still avoid tuna, swordfish and the like)
- rawvegan propaganda and rawvegan lies
- early "instinctive stops" when eating the unsalted meat of land animals
- and that nuts don´t spoil as fast as fish or liver; so I preferred eating nuts ;-).
When I ate many nuts, fish (that I otherwise liked very much) lost its "instinctive attraction" for a while. I then didn´t eat (many) nuts for a while and the fish became attractive for me again.

[goodsamaritan]

In my personal experiments I found nuts to be bad food.
Nuts should be looked at as fun rare food in small quantities.
Aajonus' observation that nuts interfered with meat digestion is true for me.
I eat too much nuts, I can't eat or digest much meat.

The nuts I experimented on were raw pili nuts. It's what we have that's raw in our provinces.

[alphagruis]

Nuts even much more than sweet fruits intake must be wilfully severely restricted and not eaten up to so-called "instinctive stop".

Nuts provide typically as much as 8000 kcal/ kg, exhibit a very unfavorable omega6/omega3 fatty acid profile and a total lack of vitamins D, K2 and preformed A. Eating on a regular basis such stuff up to so called "instinctive stop" is a catastrophy for most people. Simple satiety signals from brain then just kill attraction towards any food not just fish and in particular more balanced and indispensable nutrient rich fats from animals.

If an "instinct" were really at work according to Burger's view, why the hell, Hanna, when eating nuts should you no longer be attracted to fish, a food that precisely might correct for the bad fat profile and lack of important vitamins in nuts?  

[Hanna]

Hi  ,

>>Nuts provide typically as much as 8000 kcal/ kg,

I´m quite sure that I seldom ate more calories than I needed. But I guess that a large proportion of my caloric intake was supplied by nuts.

>>Eating on a regular basis such stuff up to so called "instinctive stop" is a catastrophy for most people. Simple satiety signals from brain then just kill attraction towards any food not just fish and in particular more balanced and indispensable nutrient rich fats from animals.

Are there specific symptoms which these people lacking animal fat have (besides the symptoms of B12 deficiency)? 

>>If an "instinct" were really at work according to Burger's view, why the hell, Hanna, when eating nuts should you no longer be attracted to fish, a food that precisely might correct for the bad fat profile and lack of important vitamins in nuts?  

It seems that this instinct at least can easily be disturbed...

[alphagruis]

Are there specific symptoms which these people lacking animal fat have (besides the symptoms of B12 deficiency)? 

Emaciation, skin problems, impaired eyesight, thermal regulation, fertility, libido etc etc