Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2

[goodsamaritan]

Imagine if we had more DURIAN like fruit in the garden of eden days right?
Durian they say is a pre-historic fruit.
Seriously, people can almost live off this fruit for a couple of days.
There must have been more like it but are now extinct.
Just a few thousand years ago...

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for the interesting info, Hanna. I don't recall encountering that hypothesis before.

Another interesting recent tidbit was the discovery of stone tools used by hominins to butcher cow- and goat-sized mammals 3.4 million years ago--at the time of and place of Australopithecus afarensis (see "Early humans were butchers 3.4 million years ago").

As Hanna pointed out, fruits were not and are not plentiful in all habitats. Animal flesh was what allowed humans to span the globe.

These facts of course don't necessarily mean that no humans should eat fruit or anything like that, but they do give a very different perspective from what we normally get.

[GCB]

Hi Phil, hi gcb,
Maybe this could be of interest for you?
http://www.primates.com/history/
I don´t deny that a kind of primeval forest probably played a key role in the evolution of our forebears. But our forebears left the forest a long time ago and obviously they did it for good reason (disappearance of forests because of climate change). They then adapted to an environment that did not continuously supply them with fruit any longer.

This clearly shows that things are not so simple and that knowledge never stops changing.

As mentioned earlier, there were many more migrations, environmental and climatic changes, unknown adaptation mechanisms etc. that could have been presiding over the evolution of our genome than one generally thinks. Therefore, it is very unwise to start from a given paleontological model to draw conclusions for an ideal diet.

More than ever, I think the most rational approach is to start from the observation of what we are today and invoke the accepted knowledge or theories for illustrative purposes, explanatory assumptions or heuristic only.

[GCB]

Quote from: GCB on September 17, 2010, 05:48:59 PM
Hanna, Paleophil, Your responses are always based on the assumption that we can explain everything with current knowledge.
Quote from Paleophil:
-- I don't know where you got that idea. I don't believe we will EVER explain everything with current or future knowledge. As a matter of fact, I think not knowing everything is part of the joy of life!

Very good philosophy! However, almost each of your lines is to ask theoretical justifications for observed facts. Theoretical justifications are always based on existing knowledge.

-- So not believing that we will ever explain everything is one of my fundamental viewpoints, but don't worry about my views right now. I'm not interested in my views at this time (and you're getting them wrong anyway), nor in propagating them, whereas you are an international exponent of anopsology and using the alliesthesic mechanisms such as taste, smell, texture, and pleasure/displeasure, yes? I'm interested in learning about your views. How can I learn about your views if you get distracted trying to guess what my views might be? It's up to you whether to answer or not, of course, and thanks for sharing what you have so far.

I'm not trying to call your beliefs into question, I try to let you see that you constantly refer to a knowledge system: eg recommended carbs ratio in various diets, assuming that the rate of carbohydrates can obey to a particular standard, that this standard is probably lower than that of a diet like instincto, etc.. That’s a whole frame of notions borrowed to the prevailing  knowledge system. Hence the misunderstanding between us when I try to explain that the instincto is to obey the body language (pleasant and unpleasant sensations), to observe what nutrition is being set up without any preconceived idea about the ideal food components and for only basic premise (which is especially obvious) that the culinary art enhance flavors, so may push to eat products that we would not consume otherwise.

Experience shows that all fruits work very well on the instinctive and metabolic points.
-- OK, and again, who's experience are you talking about?

The instincto experience (short and long term observation of people of every age, from newborns to elders applying the instincto rules), an experience about the abolition of culinary arts etc. that you can do as anyone can. Moreover, my collaborators and I have done in the 60s and 70s a lot of experimentation with hundreds of animals, mostly mice. It very clearly showed the noxious effect of cooking, wheat, corn and milk of other animals species, but veggies and not too selected fruits did not cause the same problems. These experiences can also be quite easily reproduced.

The fruits grown in South-East Asia are in general particularly well suited...
-- All right, you've promoted the fruits of South/Southeast Asia several times now--and that is based on...?

I do not promote South East Asian fruit: the instincto emits no a priori for or against a particular natural product. Simply, the observation fairly consistently shows greater attraction for some fruits, regardless of any theoretical bias. I never claimed to explain the why of such fact. On the contrary, you seem contesting the adequacy of fruits in the name of theories that appear questionable (alleged impossibility of a genetic adaptation to Asian fruit).

I personally feel that the current species distribution results of a sort of split of what could have been the wild before the onset of culinary arts and agriculture. Cooking greatly limits the consumption of fruit for the benefit of grain (because with cooked grain there is no barrier against instinctive nutritional overload, thus a massive excess drastically impeding the consumption of fruit). Most varieties of fruit were then abandoned, the primeval forest largely destroyed by slash and burn....
-- So you apparently see "the primeval forest" as somehow important, yes? Do you believe that a critical point in human dietary evolution occurred in this primeval forest and was it a tropical forest in Africa? How long ago was this primeval period and how long did it last, do you think? How did you first learn about it?

I do not know and it doesn’t particularly interest me, especially because it is impossible to know the past of the multiple genes constituing our genome. The hypothesis of an incomplete adaptation to the culinary arts is in itself an attempt to explain the observed phenomena, and the theory is built upon this hypothesis is a heuristic designed to better examine the reality, not to validate or condemn any diet.

That is why I prefered to question the body and what remains of our genetic programming.
-- OK, so human body/biology and genetic programming are important, eh? When and where did this genetic programming occur? Was it during the time of the primeval forest you mentioned above?

Important? Let's say rather interesting. But unknowable, thus unusable to derive reliable diet rules.It can only serve as an afterwards explanation.

Let’s assume that the alliesthesic mechanisms are mistaken with a kind of fruit to which we would not be adapted: we will observe then immediately either a poorly regulated consumption, so either overload or nutritional deficiencies, digestive and metabolic or immune or nervous problems, perhaps also a sensory blockade to this fruit while it might be useful. In short, any malfunction.
-- So if I experience any malfunction with a fruit, are you saying that means I'm not well adapted to it?

Probably: it is the most immediate explanation. I would especially try to develop a rule that tends either to exclude it should it be really harmful, or to better recognize the body signals emitted about it.

It is in any case a bit naive to believe that the current system of knowledge to which you refer should explain everything.
-- I believed that nothing could explain everything long before you joined this forum, GCB. What is this "current system of knowledge" that you speak of?

As said above, all the knowledge you refer in each of your arguments. We're never really aware of being locked in a paradigm that builds and guide our reasoning.

It was precisely in putting this system in question that I was led to focus on the observation of the body’s behavior...
What aspects of "this system" did you question?

All about nutrition principles, starting with the presupposition asserting that a system is the sum of its parts, or that we can know the body needs, or that a morbid symptom is the sign of a disease, or that animal milk is good for health, or that man is made to consume grain.

-- Do you ever question your own views or put them to the test and how?

I've ever done it, always, and I am ready to question everything if any observation or a new discovery warrants it.

-- Have you changed any of your views since La Guerre du Cru was published (was that in 1985)?

Yes, about the danger of too much meat from domesticated animals.

Have you published any writings since then?

My website.

…the influence of culinary and agricultural artifices
-- How do you know they are artifices and what preceded them?

It is true that the question arises. One might imagine that cooking art is part of nature and that it has no harmful effects. One can also imagine that it was invented during the last millennias and it poses problems for our metabolism. One can still imagine that the organism has found ways to solve or minimize these problems. The only problem is none of this is fairly safe to infer a specific diet and secure its beneficial effects on health.

So I proceeded in the opposite direction: as an experiment I removed all culinary artifice and observed what happens, then presented the instincto as an experience that everyone can do on his own body, with as a warranty the that a number of pioneers practiced for many decades with excellent results. I have made known the results, simply because everyone has the right to know, but always said that I can not predict the results on a time scale longer than the personal experiences already made. I have built the theory afterwards as a confirmation, or because it's interesting, and also for educational purposes, because many results are surprising and inexplicable by the generally accepted theories.

It’s possible that the health conditions could be even better by excluding certain varieties of fruit, but the criteria of balance that I have set are so precise that it doesn’t seem significant.
-- What are these "precise" criteria of balance that you refer to?

I have already spoken about it several times: it is mainly about the criteria concerning quality of digestion, self-regulation of inflammatory tendency (disappearance of all inflammatory pain, a phenomenon that medicine has not yet linked with nutritional balance, and the absence of foodborne immune disorders – which you don’t seem to grasp the significance).

-- You write about fruit quite a bit. Are you personally a big fan of fruit and do you love it's taste? How much fruit do you eat each day? What is the longest time period you go without fruit in a given year? Do you think that every human being should eat fruit?

The principle of the instincto leaves to everyone the freedom to feel in his/her body its own needs. If I teach something, it is precisely to get rid of any preconceived ideas in order to be capable of listening well to our body. Experience shows then that everyone without exception (except extremes pathologies) is automatically led to consume fruits. The opposite would be quite surprising. But then to impose the consumption of a certain amount of fruit to each particular individual would contradict the very foundations of the method.

In any event, I would say that the supply we currently have and which includes all available plant and animal varieties (with the rules of caution put in place facing the highly modern selected varieties) is an excellent approximation of what might be an ideal food environment.
-- Would you provide a list of staple foods and their sources that you would include in this "ideal food environment" (for a theoretical example: "Cavendish bananas purchased from a farmer's market")?

Anything you like, as found in nature, unprocessed... Just avoid dairy, cultivated grain, fruits too artificially selected and loaded with pesticides.

[PaleoPhil]

Continued from: http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56665/#msg56665

No, but I feel that “promoting a diet” isn’t the appropriate words. Is saying “eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo” “promoting a diet for humanity”?

You write as though that is all that GCB has been doing. GCB has done more than just write "eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo," but even that is promoting a raw Paleo diet approach for humanity when it is directed to others. In other words, he's not just sharing his success story, he's making recommendations intended for the whole human race through his published interviews and writings, his website and forum posts. You seemed to acknowledge this here:

Subject: An instincto's comments
From: François Dovat <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:05 +0100
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0201&L=raw-food&T=0&F=&S=&P=50665

F : > ...15 years of prison is quite cheap for I guy who suggest a theory that might save the whole planet.

Although, afterwards you wrote: "Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Don't you know I'm a joker ?" when Kirt commented about this. So maybe you were just joking and don't think that GCB's theory might be able to save the planet?

I like fruits as much as I like meat, eggs and shelfish.

I also like fruits very much. Your point?

It’s the observation of a fact: how can you see it as promoting?

You act as if I said that GCB is promoting a diet by the mere fact that he likes raw fruit. Surely you know that is not true. Please don't play games with me. GCB has done much more than that, as I explained above.

I fail the see the contradiction you see, but anyway I do not expect someone to never self contradict  on some petty points.

The points you described are petty, but I did not make them. They are straw men of your imagination. I am disappointed to see you use this same unproductive strategem that GCB has used.

But a jackfruit, a cempedak, a durian, or a rare ripe and creamy breadfruit is also much more nourishing then pears or apples. Other fruits are just appetizers in comparison.

Now you are confirming what I actually wrote by praising tropical fruits over other fruits. This is the sort of thing I was talking about. I was merely making observations of what I had seen Instinctos write, not making the petty points you described. If they were truly petty, why would you, GCB and other Instinctos write them? Clearly tropical fruits are important to you folks or you would not keep writing about them. Why should simply observing this fact cause defensiveness?

Aren’t taste and senses sufficient reasons?

That confirms my observation that taste/sense appears to be a main reason that Instinctos tend to eat plenty of tropical fruits, perhaps the primary one, and Tyler and beyondveg.com and others have also reported observing this predilection for fruits, particularly tropical ones. Since tropical fruits tend to be highly favored by the senses, do you think they must therefore be highly nutritious foods, perhaps the most nutritious, since your senses signal to you and other Instinctos to eat them plentifully?

Why can't we use our brains as well as our senses? Do not some wild animals and Hunter Gatherers teach their young which foods to eat and which ones to not eat?

The same applies for meat, eggs, crabs and shellfish. In the Paleolithic, our ancestors hominids didn’t have any other criterions to know what’s good and what’s bad. They just applied the instincto rule which is: what’s good is good, what’s bad is bad!

Ah, here is another reference to our ancient ancestors. When I try to discuss these references to ancestors and ancient habitats by GCB he seems to get defensive and change the subject. I hope you won't do that if I explore your views on this further, for how else am I to learn about them if I can't ask questions and get answers to them? Do you think that our Paleolithic ancestors, including yours and mine specifically, had access to plenty of tropical fruits for an extensive part of the year? Do you think that the tropical fruits of South and SE Asia that Instinctos tend to eat (durians, bananas, [fill in the blanks]) closely resemble the fruits that our Paleolithic ancestors ate? Do you think that they relied on their senses alone and didn't teach their children anything about what to eat and what not to eat? Does relying on the senses apply equally as well today as it did then? If not, what other considerations apply today? You have mentioned cultivated fruit being an issue today. Does this mean we should prefer fruits that are closer to their wild origin and artificially restrict consumption of cultivated fruits?

Yes, it must be somewhere in his book, but anyway it’s just a logical inference form the most basic point of his theory : you don’t eat something you don’t like. So, if there’s nothing you like in a sequence, of course you skip it.

I'm not saying that I don't like fruits or honey. Quite the contrary, I enjoy them very much. It just happens that for whatever reason I experience negative symptoms after consuming more than a small amount of most of them.

He has always emphasized that the point is to find the particular foodstuff that suits bests to your needs, so that you can eat plenty of it to fill that need.

Does he offer any other criteria for determining the foods that suit our needs other than the senses? In my case, my senses have guided me in harmful directions at times. Could this mean that tropical fruits and honey were not plentiful year round in the habitats of my ancestors?

When your actual body needs are fulfilled, there’s no point to eat something else. It’s better to eat a lot of something with the minimum number of different stuff in a meal.

Perhaps, but based on what evidence? Didn't tribes at times gather many different foods and bring them back to the camp to share? I have seen photographic evidence of a single zhu/wasi lady gathering a remarkable diversity of foods and bringing them back to camp in a cloth sack. Hide skins, bags and parfleches and reed baskets would have served this purpose before cloth, and before these aids, many hands could have carried smaller quantities of diverse foods short distances to a camp or gathering spot to feast. Even chimps like to combine leaves with the meat that they eat. So while our ancestors did more mono-eating than we do today, they sometimes combined their foods. Some foods in nature are themselves combinations. For example, honeycomb with grubcomb, coconuts and avocadoes that contain both carbs and sugar, insects that contain both protein and fat, animals that contain protein, fat and carbs, nuts that contain protein and fats and so on.

Yes, eating fruits is not compulsory… Do you remember  that post of Diogen? GCB would probably advise you to test once in a way the fruit that smells best for you and eat a small amount of it at first. The immediate reaction of the body can be difficult to interpret. It may trigger a detox and you never know if it’s that or something else. But if the stuff is more or less wild, not polluted by chemicals, smelled and tasted good to you, what else could it be?

My senses almost invariably find fruits to be pleasing, I don't tend to get an immediate "detox," whatever that is supposed to be (it's a term that is used in so many vague and magical ways that it is essentially meaningless and useless). Rather, I get negative symptoms some hours after I have finished eating fruits. So the senses fail me when it comes to fruits.

True, most tend to eat a lot of fruits. I don’t know on which criterions Kirt’s list is based - he writes it’s based on a similar list established by Dr Jacques Fradin.

I think Kirt's main point was that these are the foods that Instincto's tend to eat. The only error I can see is that his list appears to under-represent fruits, which I thank you for confirming.

I don’t know on which criterions Kirt’s list is based - he writes it’s based on a similar list established by Dr Jacques Fradin.

Can you direct me to the source, I'm curious to check it out, as I hadn't heard of Fradin until you mentioned him.

It’s a classification and I consider most classifications of natural things as inappropriate.

Classifications of natural things are merely conventions intended to promote learning and understanding. They have utility so they continue to be used whether you or I like them or not. Let's not get distracted by this tangent.

It is irrelevant to says that “instinctos” eat this or this, “instinctos” talk about this or this. Properly speaking, there’s no such specie as “instinctos”. There are only human beings like you and me, all different. I eat instincto, but I’m no instincto. It’s just an experiment I started because I read GCB’s book and I wanted to know if what he says is true or bullshit.

You appear to be evading the real issue with this tangent. Of course Instinctos are not a separate species, no one said they were. That's a straw man. My definition of an instincto is someone who eats an instincto type diet and roughly follows the principles. You don't have to be in a different species to do that. If you're doing that then under my definition you are currently acting as an instincto. There is also the term Anopsology, but it never caught on and likely never will. If you have another term to suggest, fine, but as you implied before, let's not quibble over semantics. We need some term to describe the approach you're following and advocating in this thread and Instincto seems suitable.

As it suits me, I still go on, but I still doubt.

That's commendable. Someone who doesn't doubt would lack credibility with me.

Anyway the theory is logical, I’ve failed to find any flaw in the fundamental points and it seems we are on the right track. .... The instinco theory works in the way you don’t have to ask anyone “Can I eat that?” "How much should I eat of that?" "What is the right fat/protein ratio?". It’s very practical. You’re hungry and find a big mushroom. You don’t know anything about mushrooms. You take it and smell it. If it smells good, you carefully take a small piece in the mouth and wait a few seconds. If the taste remains good, then you know you can swallow it.

That "theory" is part of what I was referring to as "Instincto" or "Anopsology." All human beings do not consciously apply that theory. Instinctos do, or at least try. This is what I was referring to as Instincto, not some different species.

? I don’t know, I don’t remember having written anything like that.  AFAIK, GCB doesn’t consider any cooked food as ok. Perhaps I meant that some cooked food are less noxious then some others?

Here is what you wrote:

Subject: Re: An instincto's comments
From: Secola/Nieft <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:39:52 -1000

Kirt: Is there a list of cooked foods that Burger considers non-toxic?
Francois:  Jean-Louis Tu has one on this site (see my original post).

[Iguana]

You write as though that is all that GCB has been doing. GCB has done more than just write "eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo," but even that is promoting a raw Paleo diet approach for humanity when it is directed to others. In other words, he's not just sharing his success story, he's making recommendations intended for the whole human race through his published interviews and writings, his website and forum posts. You seemed to acknowledge this here:
(see ref. in PaleoPhil post)
F : > ...15 years of prison is quite cheap for I guy who suggest a theory that might save the whole planet.

Although, afterwards you wrote: "Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Don't you know I'm a joker ?" when Kirt commented about this. So maybe you were just joking and don't think that GCB's theory might be able to save the planet?

Of course, that was a kind of joke… 
If you want my opinion, I think it’s too late and we’re doomed. The planet is more and more overcrowded and we are about to have exhausted all its natural resources. Growth cannot go on for ever. GCB wouldn’t agree on that, he’s an irreducible optimist. Anyhow, all this uncontrolled growth and accelerated destruction of natural resources wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t started agriculture,  domestication of animals and cooking. So, there’s a bit more than just a plain joke in my above sentence. 

No, of course, he’s not only saying "eat what you like as long as it is raw and as much as possible paleo," but I feel it’s the core of his message. 

I also like fruits very much. Your point?

I thought what I wrote following your quote explained my point: “I like fruits as much as I like meat, eggs and shelfish. My cat doesn’t like fruits (except durian and avocados!)”. Since you questioned GCBs “positive remarks about fruits”, my point was meant to ask t if humans are carnivores and  shouldn’t eat fruits, how comes that we are attracted by fruits while carnivores like cats are not ? 

You act as if I said that GCB is promoting a diet by the mere fact that he likes raw fruit. Surely you know that is not true. Please don't play games with me. GCB has done much more than that, as I explained above.
The points you described are petty, but I did not make them. They are straw men of your imagination. I am disappointed to see you use this same unproductive strategem that GCB has used.

Phil, I try to answer as honestly as possible to your comments and I’m sorry that you perceive my answer as playing a game of unproductive stratagems. I feel the misunderstanding must come that we have opposite ways of thinking about diet - but perhaps I’m wrong.

Now you are confirming what I actually wrote by praising tropical fruits over other fruits. This is the sort of thing I was talking about. I was merely making observations of what I had seen Instinctos write, not making the petty points you described. If they were truly petty, why would you, GCB and other Instinctos write them? Clearly tropical fruits are important to you folks or you would not keep writing about them. Why should simply observing this fact cause defensiveness?

Defensiveness? I just wrote that you’re spot on and that some tropical fruits are more nourishing than pears and apples. What’s the problem with such a statement ? Anyway, we can live without tropical fruits. I don’t have any at the moment, I just eat the apples and persimmons I collected around. In summer and autumn I do well with figs, I like them as much as durians and jackfruits.

That confirms my observation that taste/sense appears to be a main reason that Instinctos tend to eat plenty of tropical fruits, perhaps the primary one, and Tyler and beyondveg.com and others have also reported observing this predilection for fruits, particularly tropical ones. Since tropical fruits tend to be highly favored by the senses, do you think they must therefore be highly nutritious foods, perhaps the most nutritious, since your senses signal to you and other Instinctos to eat them plentifully?

Yes, I think so. They are sweet and not much acidic. Sweetness certainly means they contain a lot of sugars.

Why can't we use our brains as well as our senses?

Using our instinct to know whether we can eat something or not, what and how much to eat doesn’t exclude using our brain to select the shortest way to the bay where there are oysters or how to proceed to trap a deer.

But using our brain to select such or such foodstuff because we know it contains this or this nutrients and avoid another stuff because it’s supposed to contain antinutrients will interfere with our instinctive regulation and distort it.

Do not some wild animals and Hunter Gatherers teach their young which foods to eat and which ones to not eat?

Yes, they do. I recon that training is advantageous, time and energy is saved in searching for food and selecting it. Training and instinct work together without conflicting. 

Ah, here is another reference to our ancient ancestors. When I try to discuss these references to ancestors and ancient habitats by GCB he seems to get defensive and change the subject. I hope you won't do that if I explore your views on this further, for how else am I to learn about them if I can't ask questions and get answers to them?

You’re welcome to ask me whatever you want, but I’m very far from having any kind of  ultimate and total knowledge! So, please don’t get irritated if I can’t answer to every point you raise. And if I try to answer, my answers may be flawed.

Do you think that our Paleolithic ancestors, including yours and mine specifically, had access to plenty of tropical fruits for an extensive part of the year?

I don’t know. Most hominids must have had access to some kinds of fruits, but they were probably different than even the wild actual fruits. Plants and animals are in constant evolution. There’s co-evolution also, animals spread the seeds of the fruits and plants they eat. 

Do you think that the tropical fruits of South and SE Asia that Instinctos tend to eat (durians, bananas, [fill in the blanks]) closely resemble the fruits that our Paleolithic ancestors ate?

I don’t know,  but your question applies even  more to the fruits of temperate areas (apples, pears, cherries, grapes, prunes, etc.) which are extremely unlikely to have existed in the Paleolithic era in a form closely alike to their actual form, and moreover in areas were our ancestors lived. It depend also to which ancestors we refer to and all this becomes highly hypothetical.

Anyway,  most fruits contain a lot of common substances such as acids, sugars, vitamins and so on. Therefore an adaptation to various species of fruits is likely to be not so difficult, not as difficult as to entirely new classes of food such as cooked stuff, cereals and dairy.   

Do you think that they relied on their senses alone and didn't teach their children anything about what to eat and what not to eat?

No, I don’t think they relied on their senses alone. Yes, I think there’s transmission of knowledge between the generations. This has already been talked about above :  “training is advantageous, time and energy is saved in searching for food and selecting it. Training and instinct work together without conflicting”.

Does relying on the senses apply equally as well today as it did then? If not, what other considerations apply today?

It’s very probably more difficult today for we have certainly lost a good part of our smell sensibility and today’s foodstuff have evolved  very rapidly. We also have to use our brain not only to find the easiest way to get food, but also to find the wildest foodstuff and the less artificially transformed.

You have mentioned cultivated fruit being an issue today. Does this mean we should prefer fruits that are closer to their wild origin and artificially restrict consumption of cultivated fruits?

Yes, sure, I think so. This applies for meats as well.

I'm not saying that I don't like fruits or honey. Quite the contrary, I enjoy them very much. It just happens that for whatever reason I experience negative symptoms after consuming more than a small amount of most of them.
Does he offer any other criteria for determining the foods that suit our needs other than the senses?

Yes, the wildest as possible. Training is also crucial. 

In my case, my senses have guided me in harmful directions at times. Could this mean that tropical fruits and honey were not plentiful year round in the habitats of my ancestors?

We’ve had a whole lot of various ancestors… You say below you don’t believe in detox reactions, but I don’t have any other explanation to offer, unless the fruits you ate had been irradiated or immerged in a fluid at 55° C, a mandatory procedure to import fruits in US, I think. It’s very difficult as well to find real raw, unheated  honey from bees not feed with industrial saccharose.   

Perhaps, but based on what evidence? Didn't tribes at times gather many different foods and bring them back to the camp to share? I have seen photographic evidence of a single zhu/wasi lady gathering a remarkable diversity of foods and bringing them back to camp in a cloth sack. Hide skins, bags and parfleches and reed baskets would have served this purpose before cloth, and before these aids, many hands could have carried smaller quantities of diverse foods short distances to a camp or gathering spot to feast. Even chimps like to combine leaves with the meat that they eat. So while our ancestors did more mono-eating than we do today, they sometimes combined their foods. Some foods in nature are themselves combinations. For example, honeycomb with grubcomb, coconuts and avocadoes that contain both carbs and sugar, insects that contain both protein and fat, animals that contain protein, fat and carbs, nuts that contain protein and fats and so on.

Yes, I agree. I just mentioned that it’s better to eat a minimum of different foods in a meal because some stuffs are difficult to digest when mixed in the stomach with others, and the more different food eaten in a single meal the more complicated  the digestion may be. 2 or 3 different compatible food are fine, 5 or 6 may be ok. But on the other hand, some are very hard to digest when mixed in the stomach, so here again experience and training are useful.

My senses almost invariably find fruits to be pleasing, I don't tend to get an immediate "detox," whatever that is supposed to be (it's a term that is used in so many vague and magical ways that it is essentially meaningless and useless). Rather, I get negative symptoms some hours after I have finished eating fruits. So the senses fail me when it comes to fruits.

There’s a theoretical model of detoxination, nothing magical about it.

When our body receives the proper raw food it should have received  from the start but never got before, these food must be digested first, and then the nutrients molecules must be transported to the cells by the blood and lymph. This process takes a few hours. When the cells receive those undamaged, proper molecules, they are supposed (according to the model) to proceed to some exchanges, expelling  a number of doubtful molecules they were constrained to use because there was nothing better at hand. These molecules more or less damaged by heat or other factors are put into the lymph and blood before being eliminated by the emunctories, some more hours latter.

I think Kirt's main point was that these are the foods that Instincto's tend to eat. The only error I can see is that his list appears to under-represent fruits, which I thank you for confirming.
Can you direct me to the source, I'm curious to check it out, as I hadn't heard of Fradin until you mentioned him.

Fradin was a MD who worked with GCB at Montramé. While working there, he promoted the “hypotoxic diet”, which was basicaly excluding grain and dairy but allowing cooked food. The aim was to provide a easier diet than the instincto to people who found difficult to eat 100% raw. After a while, he had some disagreements and disputes with GCB. Moreover, he was very eager to cash a maximum amount of money in his pocket. He finally left and started to commercialize pots of cooked “hypotoxic” stuff. Subsequently, his commercial enterprise went into bankruptcy, I think.

Classifications of natural things are merely conventions intended to promote learning and understanding. They have utility so they continue to be used whether you or I like them or not. Let's not get distracted by this tangent.

OK!

You appear to be evading the real issue with this tangent. Of course Instinctos are not a separate species, no one said they were. That's a straw man. My definition of an instincto is someone who eats an instincto type diet and roughly follows the principles. You don't have to be in a different species to do that. If you're doing that then under my definition you are currently acting as an instincto. There is also the term Anopsology, but it never caught on and likely never will. If you have another term to suggest, fine, but as you implied before, let's not quibble over semantics. We need some term to describe the approach you're following and advocating in this thread and Instincto seems suitable.

Right sir! I put it in that metaphoric, caricature  way to mean that so called “instinctos”are not a standard type of persons. They don’t belong to a monolithic sect and there are extremely different ones, eating very different things. Some are great carnivores, some are vegetarians  (even if excluding a paleo food class for ideological reasons is anti-instincto; should those be labelled “instinctos”?); some eat tropical fruits, some don’t; some live in Europe, some live in the tropics; a few eat 100% raw, many don’t; some eat a single food at a time with several meal a day, some stick to 2 meals a day with different stuff in the same meal; most don’t take any breakfast, some do; some don’t want to be called “instinctos”even if they eat raw, unmixed and unprocessed paleo the very same way than I…   

That's commendable. Someone who doesn't doubt would lack credibility with me.

I’ve never strictly believed  in the instincto theory as I avoid beliefs as much as I’m aware of. For me, it is a very new and interesting theory that I’ve been experimenting, but of course that’s an approximation, like every scientific theory.

That "theory" is part of what I was referring to as "Instincto" or "Anopsology." All human beings do not consciously apply that theory. Instinctos do, or at least try. This is what I was referring to as Instincto, not some different species.

I hope you didn’t take me seriously about that “different specie” caricature !

Here is what you wrote:
(see ref. in PaleoPhil post)

Kirt: Is there a list of cooked foods that Burger considers non-toxic?
Francois:  Jean-Louis Tu has one on this site (see my original post).

Ah! Here again, I was kinda joking! Jean-Louis Tu is not  Burger! If I remember correctly, this answer  of mine to Kirt’s question means that for non toxic cooked food, he can go and read Jean-Louis Tu, because that guy has his own list of food that himself considers non-toxic, in total opposition to Burger’s ideas!

Wawh… what a post… it’s half past two in the morning…
Please, don’t aggress me if my answers are obtuse… I promise you I did my best!

Francois

[KD]

Well, that was a good bedtime story. We can all put little instincto to bed.

yes lets

The only thing worse than the actual philosophy is the downright hypocritical and pretentious dismissals of anything that isn't such a flawed philosophy and hidden behind such concepts as "the natural". The constant blabbering about what a caveman would do or how x, y, z is not crucial or relevant to health based on some fantasy, might mean absolute failure for alot of people if the large part of people here were not too intelligent here to fall for it. I'll focus just on this aspect as I think it is sufficient.

The only other raw guru online I had managed to find and read a little about was GCB, but he had recommended against raw meats, at one point, so was not helpful as I did not want to go raw vegan again.

Where did you find that ? I’m not aware that he did so. AFAIK he only warned about eating too much meat (of domesticated mammals, but perhaps he didn’t make that clear enough). Anyhow, he always ate meat and couldn’t be more far away from vegans.

from  "Manger vrai" Editions du Rocher (1990), page 178:

"Je ne suis pas pour la viande, moins on en mange mieux cela vaut à tous les
points de vue - respect de la vie , rendement agricole, économie, etc. Mais
je pense qu'il est faux d'être a priori contre la viande. Dans certains cas
elle peut jouer un rôle thérapeutique essentiel."

translated by a friend:

"I do not recommend meat, the less meat one eats, the better it is in every
respect - respect for life, efficiency of agriculture, economics, etc. But I
think that it is wrong to be a priori against any meat. In some cases[!] it may
play an essential therapeutic role.")

as to Burger being farthest away from veganism as possible, same book,
page 175:

"Je pense que le végétarisme correspond à une vérité, à une lointaine
expérience que les hommes ont faite quand ils ont commencé à se nourrir de
viande ou plus exactement à se nourrir de viande sans obéir aux lois de
l'instinct."

translated by a friend:

"I think veganism corresponds to a truth, to an ancient experience humans
made when they began to feed on meat or more precisely feed on meat without
complying with the instinct's laws."

This happens apparently in the 'unpublished' explanations as can be seen all over this thread. Search around the surrounding arguments around these points.

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.

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.

In a nutshell all one needs to focus on is if the health 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. This has not been shown, therefore one cannot say the instincto method trumps these methods nevermind that these other methods are 'bad' or will allow one to heal and thrive most efficiently without them.  Over and over what we are given is the mere minimum ability to exist without the ails of society - if it even accomplishes that. Even if one can argue otherwise it should never in any case be used to discredit other ideas of health based on them being 'natural' if it fails in basics factors to those achieved through the practices it implicitly outlines as harmful in its dogma and thus blocked from its followers as suitable strategies.

other useful wrap up:

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 or in the right amount anymore than an abstraction from a guru. Because true deficiencies are rare but ideal amounts of nutrients are always beneficial, one cannot tell again whether each food choice is based on a true need or that another food can satisfy that need more for optimal health, this particularly is important with macro-nutrients which can drastically impact health. The reason hominids could get by without crunching nutrients is their environment and pre-existing health was absolutely dependent on a set environment arguably conducive to survival - even when those environments shifted - and not because their instinct choose the best foods from a variety of post-industrial settings requiring no effort, ability or strength immobilized by a modern pretention of a natural diet.

At the same time this does not mean that having these kind of intelligences or control over that environment and its variables would not result in a net positive increase on health if it was plausible in ancient times to do so. Likely different humanoids had different lifespans, abilities, strengths, or weakness, and knowledge of process and the combined knowledge of all would be superior to their ignorance and instinct. There are animals in nature that will do better with a certain amount of intake and will suffer in a poor environment or with excessive options and thus again is proof that instinct is not the sole regulator of health and nutrition, particularly in domesticated environments. Contemporary humans have totally different requirements than caveman with lots of complex internal issues of internal bacteria, fungus etc.. which both effect desire and also may require specific and even modern protocols to reset equilibrium that go beyond taste choice. Thus again it is a total farce of a strategy to try to discredit other health approaches because they go against the fantasies of instincto dogma and natural hygiene which relate all health purely towards aligning oneself with nature - to the determent of many followers.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/primal-diet/re-aajonus%27-appearances-and-primal-potlucks/msg54483/#msg54483
and the rest of the thread for the discussion on the destructive and closed nature of such philosophies.

- 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 and should never be used as a response to such and be taken at all seriously and much of it - like primal diet wisdom from the Primal Forum or me claiming shoving meat up my ass as a therapy outside the Hot Topics forum - should have no place outside the Instincto forum particularly the welcoming board.

[Iguana]

Tanks for your ceaseless interest in the instinco theory, Knievel. But may I suggest that you read yourself the integral English translation of  the book of GCB that I provided several times the link for instead of resorting to a friend who translates for you very selected sentences taken out of context, with for result that it leads your readers to have a view about GCB's ideas which is the exact contrary of his real ideas.

 Here’s the integral part of the text from were your quotes are extracted :
 http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat3.html

_How is it that pregnant women often feel like eating cheese? You were telling me not long ago that such whims reflected dietary instinct?

o Such cravings are most probably projections of a real need for protein onto cheese, the taste of which reminds one of the flavors of high game that was such a delicacy for our forebears. Or, quite simply, they are influenced by all that talk about the need for calcium and the dangers of becoming decalcified.

_Presumably, you’d more likely advise them to dig into a fine raw minced steak with raw egg yolk and chopped onions, wouldn’t you?

o I would advise a slice of raw undressed meat. That would be safer minus the blended egg yolk and relish.

_That bamboozles your instincts. I get the message. But how can you uphold that meat was one of man’s initial foods? Primates are declaredly vegetarians.

o Here we go again, back to vegetarian doctrine. Monkeys were long believed to scorn flesh since they feed on fruit and wild plants. They had never been caught in the act of meat-eating. Accordingly, they weren’t assumed to be meat-eaters: That would have required conjuring them up eating raw meat given that they didn’t come up with cooking. Whichever way you look at it, raw meat is taboo as I was privileged to find out when I included it in raw-instinct eating.

_Had you initially banned eating meat?

o Almost every diet-conscious person comes within the undertow of vegetarianism. I was no exception at first. True enough, eating meat and flesh generally warrants due caution. Nourishing a body with alien proteins is quite dangerous. I believe that vegetarianism reflects some truth. It is an experience man had a very long time ago_that is, when he started eating meat without keeping to the laws of instinct. Nourishing the body with a food that the body wants and will be able to metabolize properly is quite different from nourishing the body with the same food when the body doesn’t want it. In the second instance, all kinds of molecules could slip though the grinding mill of dietary enzymes and trigger off devastation, the extent of which no one can as yet accurately assess.
One thing is for sure: It’s not by viewing the issue ideologically or hot-headedly that we’ll understand anything.
Getting back to our monkeys, I think we have to stick to the facts. The English ethnologist, Jane van Lawick Goodall, who lived with chimpanzees for twenty years, witnessed, apparently, a whole troop of them dismember a young wild boar. The best hunters in the troop knew how to catch it without having learnt archery. Primates have the instinct to hunt and eat their prey; it can be assumed, therefore, that animal protein is part or their natural diet. And as our genetic code is still very close...

_Apparently, monkeys eat very little meat.

o Their eating little of it doesn’t preclude its being useful and possibly even vital for their health. Nor is it necessarily bad for ours.
As I was saying, vegetarians are right to take up the cudgels against the usual ways of eating meat. It’s eaten cooked, which is toxic. And people overeat it, unheedful of instincts.
In a great many cases, I have noted that cooked meat disrupts people’s nervous systems, by generally arousing excitability, which has a ripple effect on one’s aggressiveness, anxiety and sex drive, as well as one’s entire mental make-up. I can well understand that some wise pundits centered on their inner states may have condemned it as throttling the spirit. Presumably, they didn’t consider trying raw meat as well, or else they would have realized that cooking was the culprit.
Clearly, raw meat stirs up no arousal, unless an animal is already poisoned with cooked food_in which case, the molecules that have built up in its tissues will touch off excitability in the meat eater, and he will incriminate the meat rather than the toxins.

_Is it not the actual killing of an animal that was proscribed by different religions?

o True enough, there’s something shocking about killing anything. It jars with our concepts of spirituality.
Mind you, Hitler and his henchmen were card-carrying vegetarians. But they didn’t shrink from mass murder. Perhaps one day neurophysiological disorders will be meaningfully correlated with adulterated foods and the rise of major political trends.

_Eating meat means eating death. I thought you were in favor of eating only live foods...

o That’s one of the battle cries of vegetarianism. One is rightly told that one is eating “carrion.” What better way to get you off your T-bone once and for all, as if you had a cube of human flesh on the tines of your fork. In actual fact, meat only looks dead; it’s teeming with life. Think of all the live yeasts thriving on it.
A cooked vegetable, by contrast, is stone dead. All that’s left of it is a scrawny corpse splayed out on your plate; isn’t that a carcass?

_A friend of mine always termed every meat-eater a scavenger. Barely has the animal been killed when all kinds of toxins reportedly start work on it.

o Well, you can tell him that nobody is compelled to eat meat when it has reached the stage of carrion. Rotting meat does, obviously, turn toxic after a while; it contains proteins, but instincts prevent us from eating it. The smell is repulsive; the tongue feels as though seared by the meat. It’s a good job we’re protected against a natural toxin. Carrion has been around in nature for a long time. And that the smell should repel us proves that man is by no means a scavenger.
Man isn’t a carnivorous animal either. Instincts clearly don’t allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal that’s been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell.

_Carnivorous animals are said, in fact, to live less long than herbivorous ones.

o When a tiger catches a zebu, he savors the guts filled with partly digested grass. In reality, tigers are great vegetarians! And cows that graze swallow a large number of insects with their ration of grass. They are more carnivorous than one might think. According to some farming traditions, it was, moreover, common practice to give calves, during their growth spurts, a good two dozen eggs yolks to ensure future sound health.
I’m not in favor of meat; the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way_I mean as far as respecting life, farm productivity, the economy, etc. is concerned. But I think that it’s wrong to be dead-set against meat from the outset. In some cases, meat can prove extremely useful therapeutically. What one has to know is when and how much of it one can eat, and we have the answer to that one_that is, we can trust to our instincts, which, to my mind, are more reliable than any theoretical, ethical, or other consideration.

_And what if our instincts led us astray? It seems quite plausible that meat could pervert our taste buds.

o Of course, taste alone isn’t enough to prove that meat is beneficial to us. We have to try and see the long-term effects of meat on human health. Whether it is easily digestible or not, whether one sleeps well on it, its effects on physical and mental health, whether it helps one put on weight, whether it helps cure diseases, etc. With hindsight, I have the feeling that results, on the whole, have been quite encouraging_provided one respects instinctive “cues” and that one avoids eating meat too frequently with other foods.

_Do you hold with Shelton’s theories?

o There’s always some truth in any theory. Some combinations of proteins and sugars are obviously indigestible and probably harmful if they are repeatedly brought together. I admire the clearsightedness that his books patently convey. It’s anything but easy to make heads or tails of the prevalent dietary morass, especially when one knows that behind cooking lurk manifold dangers. But one can’t apply the rules established for cooked food to “initial eating.” In that case, as in every different case, to be objective, one has to start from scratch.
I was thinking a while ago about a rather spectacular case of meat eating; a nine-year-old little boy, suffering from nearsightedness, was undergoing a course of treatment with us. His muscles had been wasting for quite some years, so much so that he could barely set one foot in front of the other without being held up. When he sat down in an armchair, he couldn’t get up unassisted. Because medicine had given up on him, his parents had decided to give instinctotherapy a try. Truth be told, during his three-week stay, that child virtually ate a straight diet of meat, and he found meat so delicious that he clamoured for it at every meal (normally, we don’t serve meat at lunch). He only varied to have a few egg yolks and a little fish.

_Isn’t overdoing it on protein like that imbalancing?

o Dietary balance, in my view, doesn’t mean balancing the menus, but balancing one’s body_namely, providing it with what it needs.

_And to hell with dietary theories!

o One has to assume that all that sustained meat-eating reflected a real need that until then had remained hidden amidst all that habitual cooking. When I returned from a trip, I caught sight of three of my children (the ones brought up on raw food from birth) who were playing a very strenuous round of table-tennis against a fourth player. The game involved running round the table so as to change players with every service. I thought that they had recruited a new little friend among the newly arrived children whom I didn’t know. Drawing closer, I realized that it was that little near-sighted boy who was running about with them.

_I can imagine what you felt.

o When one thinks of all the children whose lives are wrecked by that illness, without medicine being able to provide them with a way out.
Given results like that, I can hardly cast aspersions on meat as do some vegetarians, and as I myself did at one time. Overly strict prohibitions that have no basis in science, are always suspicious; and one should guard against giving in to them or any other form of crankiness.
With our method, we’ve been afforded further insight_that is, instincts sometimes make meat appealing, especially meat left out in the open for a while, exactly as instincts do with any natural food. It would be surprising if instincts went wrong, and considering the results are good...

_According to you, then, meat left in the open was part of man’s intitial diet?

o According to archaeologists who have studied old bones whose flesh our ancestors ate, meat was eaten in substantial amounts some five million years ago.

_Why did you mention meat left out in the open?

o There are two schools of thought: one, involving the theory connected to hunting, and two, the theory relating to scavengers. If our forbears were hunters, they possibly ate meat fresh. If they gathered the remains of carcasses left over by predators, they had to eat them when they were in the process of going bad. In fact, one can tell apart several groups of animals. First of all, the fresh meat-eaters_i.e. carnivorous animals who instinctively catch their prey and eat it live. Most of the time, they only eat part of it, beginning with the guts; they then leave the body that begins predigesting itself through the effect of its own enzymes and yeasts that develop subsequently. When it becomes rather stale, it gives off another smell, that is felt to be appealing to a second group of animals including wart hogs, rodents, monkeys, etc. Finally, the body, if anything is left of it, turns into carrion. Then, scavengers step into the picture_i.e. jackals, vultures, etc. who find the smell of carcass_which we find repugnant_most certainly very pleasant, otherwise they wouldn’t go near it. The only thing left after that is the final clean-up performed by maggots, cockroaches, and other forms of life that disgust us, because they very much conjure up a feeling of danger associated with rotting meat, which is toxic for us, or our own death, which is another form of rot.
By comparing rib steak to carrion, as a matter of course, as your friend does, he’s jumping the gun as far as the natural process of things is concerned and is forcing disgust in where there is none. Raw meat seems wonderfully enjoyable and fragrant if one needs it, when it has matured just enough. Man probably belongs to the intermediary category of carnivorous animals, somewhere between carnivorous animals and scavengers. It’s not by chance if butchers allow meat to stand for a few weeks before selling it.

_And what of purines? That same vegetarian friend is always going on about the danger of purines.

o Open a book on biochemistry: You’ll read that purines are bases that consist of adenine and guanine, two of the four building blocks in DNA. Those molecules are at the core of life; they are part of all living cells in plants as well as animals. They are broken down in our metabolism into uric acid, which, if there’s too much of it in blood can be harmful, as can be any surfeit. But we can clear uric acid perfectly well; it passes into the waters in the form of urates. Our metabolism adapted to that condition long ago, since purines can be found in all living organisms_and hence, in all “initial” foods as well.
I never understood what vegetarian schools had against those hapless purines. Why not point an equally accusing finger at pyrimidines that make up the nucleus of cytosine and thymine which are the two other bases of DNA? Is it because pyrimidine sounds like “pyramid,” and that ancient Egypt conjures up a vivid spiritual past?
I can believe that once a great naturalist must have opened a book on metabolism to the chapter on uric acid. He must have noticed that “purine” sounded like “purim.” Not understanding any of those kabalistic formulas before his eyes, and as natural fertilizers have something of a bad reputation in those environments, he went off warring, like Don Quixote against windmills (of meat).

_If I understand your point, in nature, man doesn’t necessarily have to kill to eat meat.

o The same thing applies to chicken coops: The stone marten does it for the farmer. If the latter forgets to close the door for even one night, he has as much free meat gushing with blood as he likes. I do admit, however, that, in practice, carnivorous animals have been superseded by butchers.
In the beginning, I had hoped that we could live on milk and not have to kill, but the facts made me change my mind.

_What is your answer to people who oppose that to what is said in the Bible? One of the Ten Commandments unequivocally enjoins: “Thou shalt not kill!”

o That’s a slight mistranslation. The exact wording of the Hebrew text runs: “Thou shalt not murder,”or “Lo tirtzach” (Exodus, 20, 13) (“murder” in Hebrew “ratzach” implies violent killing with deliberate intent as opposed to slaughtering animals “shachat”)_which, as far as eating is concerned, stigmatizes, if anything, cannibalism. In the passages following the first giving of the Ten Commandments, Moses, on the contrary, prescribes offering up regular sacrifices. They sometimes had to slaughter an ox or sometimes a lamb (as many as two a day) on the altar, to find favor in the eyes of the Lord of Hosts. As hanging, drawing, and quartering weren’t wholly up to scratch in those days, I think it’s reasonable to suspect that the Everlasting had to make do with burnt aromas and the priests divided up the remains. In such a way, the Bible cleverly solved the problem of protein deficiency, well before the advent of dietetics.

_All kinds of meats were considered impure, all the same. The meat one could eat was very strictly limited.

o In Deuteronomy 14:4-5, it is decreed: “These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.” I’d be happy if I had such a range to choose from. Nowadays, game is becoming rare.

_Would you have the guts to kill the animals you eat? I know I couldn’t.

o The ancients always killed animals according to sacrificial rites. Even here in Europe, a few centuries ago, bears were hunted, and afterwards, the hunters prayed that the bear would forgive them for having killed him. His remains were even piously put back together and returned to the forest.
I think that what’s most important is the frame of mind one’s in when one kills an animal and that that’s what accounts for so much harm. Sacrificing an animal because one knows that its flesh will enable our children to build up their bodies in accordance with natural laws_that hardly seems criminal to me. Indeed Gurdjieff, a very wise man who came from the Caucasus, said that animals should be grateful knowing that their flesh was going to rise to a higher level once it was eaten by a superior being.

_And would you think as much if you saw a tiger charging at you?

o Man is most assuredly not suited to being the prey of tigers, since he appeared on the scene much later than felines in the continuum of evolution. Tigers are clearly not encoded genetically to eat homo sapiens; undoubtedly, that explains why the idea of a tiger eating men seems so shocking, so unnatural to us. Tigers don’t normally attack people. They have to have already eaten a human being once. After that, they do it again and again unrelentingly and become known as man-eating tigers. But that can be easily accounted for: That flesh is undoubtedly the most highly seasoned meat that a tiger can ever hope to eat! The tiger himself gets entangled in the fine web of cooking; just think of all those remnants of tasty sauces and spicy dishes that must make the normal human being’s muscles reek_not to mention their guts! After that, gazelles must taste horribly bland. I think one has to consider things a bit more dispassionately. Creation is so made that all living beings live off one another. It’s like a huge ecological pyramid that was built up over great stretches of time. Humus absorbs minerals, plants draw on humus, animals eat plants, and some animals that are newly evolved live at the expense of the flesh of older animals. All in all, it seems to me that by prohibiting animal protein, one is going against the laws of nature.

_Still, I don’t find it very natural for a man to kill an animal. To do that, he needs a bow and arrow, a gun, or a knife. Those weapons are intelligent contrivances as well that weren’t part of the “initial” background.

o Be careful, you’re lapsing into philosophy. It’s not because I need some contrivance to capture or kill an animal that its meat won’t constitute an “initial” food as far as my metabolism is concerned. If a man is handicapped and can no longer go and get his own food, isn’t it better to make sure he is brought his daily ration, or should one explain to him that, given his condition, he should be able to get by on not eating? Do we know anything about the running techniques of our pre-intelligent ancestors, or what their strength was based on, if not the fact that they used stones, sticks, and tricks as some predators do? We have no training in the matter, our bodies have been built up on the basis of degenerate food; we can’t take ourselves as a reference. Maybe our physical strength has declined because our intelligence has taken over: skulduggery has overtaken strength.
To reiterate what I’ve said before, our genetic code is what matters: Are we equipped with the teeth, the digestive organs and, above all, the enzymes and the necessary means of clearance to break down meat without causing harm to ourselves?

_Vegetarians point out, on that count, that our canine teeth are too small and that our intestines, being ten meters long, are too long to digest meat_which accounts for fermentation in the bowels that one can diagnose through smelly feces.

o They can rest easy. Human canines have what it takes, and to spare, to bite into a whole leg of lamb or into a chicken drumstick.

_Yuck! Can you eat chicken raw?

o When the body needs it, even fowl_surprising as it may seem_takes on a very good taste. Why should there be any difference between one meat and another? It appears that we are even more suited for the flesh of fowl than that of mammals_possibly because it’s easier to find injured birds in nature. Flying has always been a dangerous sport. Think of François Truffaut’s celebrated savage child (“l’enfant sauvage”) from the Aveyron, who could catch and pluck birds with surprising skill.

_In that case, I’m not yet mature enough to switch over to your diet.

o Except you’re forgetting the most important thing: With instinctotherapy, you only eat what’s good! If any food seems bad to you, you don’t eat it. The day raw turkey grabs you, or duck, left out in the open for a while, appeals to you more than the best prepared duck in orange sauce, you’ll see all your preconceptions disappear into thin air. People always assume that one has to polish off everything on the table. Instincts, on the contrary, restore the freedom of pleasure.
Moreover, I insist on reassuring you as regards the length of your intestines. They are exactly 6.15 meters long (15.52 feet) and have everything it takes to digest what your palate control allows to get in. Its functioning was fine-tuned over a period of millions of years. All that squabbling over length is nonsens: Every living species is suited to the length of its intestines and vice versa! Food doesn’t freely ferment as it haphazardly makes its way through the bowel; intestinal flora is remarkably stable, contrary to what was once thought. The replication of germs is strictly kept down by regulatory factors that themselves had been genetically encoded.

[KD]

Here’s the integral part of the text from were your quotes are extracted :
 http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggraw_eat3.html

So the instincto diet is not actually a vegetarian diet, I think people were aware of that. What does this have to do with endlessly trolling about mixing foods and dietary ratios?  I don't think what I selected is out of context whatsoever and this again is just characteristic backpedaling and seeking of loophole arguments instead of actually acknowledging any problematic content. You just said specifically in the other thread that he never linked his diet to vegetarianism and never made claims against too much meat, but he does both right in this friggen thread as well as what you just posted! which yes I have read. The relevance of your additional 'context' is what has already been established in this thread in that while animal foods are deemed part of the instincto diet, its possible to form a diet that marginalizes these foods based on the taste or appeal of others. By that logic alone it becomes necessary to criticize others who eat meats or quantities 'prematurely' or 'scientifically' or go in for other foods or practices to improve their health that are discounted by instincto dogma? for following approaches that don't believe any combination of dates and other dried fruits with nuts and some meat is going to be healthier than a carefully researched or restricted diet (or even carry the results of a cooked junk diet) because they are wrong from the get go with their 'neolithic' practices and theorizing?

[Iguana]

So the instincto diet is not actually a vegetarian diet, I think people were aware of that. What does this have to do with endlessly trolling about mixing foods and dietary ratios?

You mean I’m trolling? Here everyone is free to express his own view,  as you have been. We don’t agree on everything, and it’s precisely the aim of a forum to encourage the expression of different views and amiable discussion between persons objectively seeking to improve their knowledge. What is your problem with me expressing my views?

May I remain you that what I say is based on 24 years personal experience of eating 100% raw and on exchanges of information with a couple of friends who have even more experience than me because they were  the firsts in the civilized world to eat 100% raw including raw meat since the beginning of the Neolithic era.

I don't think what I selected is out of context whatsoever

Selecting just the few words that say the exact contrary of what the author generally means in the text is just intellectual dishonesty and betraying. And now you have the affront to pretend that your quotes were not even taken out of context! It’s incredible.  

and this again is just characteristic backpedaling and seeking of loophole arguments instead of actually acknowledging any problematic content. You just said specifically in the other thread that he never linked his diet to vegetarianism and never made claims against too much meat, but he does both right in this friggen thread as well as what you just posted!

No, I said “in the other thread”:

(…)I’m not aware that he did so. AFAIK he only warned about eating too much meat (of domesticated mammals, but perhaps he didn’t make that clear enough). Anyhow, he always ate meat and couldn’t be more far away from vegans.

Again you blatantly pretend that I wrote the exact contrary of what I actually wrote, leaving me the time consuming work to find the reference you were too lazy to provide – of course, if you had taken the trouble to search for it before writing this rushed answer, you wouldn’t have written such an utterly false statement.    

which yes I have read.

Good to know. Perhaps you should calmly read the whole book as well and take the time to think about it before to make some more wide of the mark comments.

I didn’t read AV and therefore I do not comment about his ideas because before I take a stand on a subject, I want to know all about it and as much as possible experiment it myself. I just mention that dairy consumption is typically Neolithic, which seems to be a fact that none seriously challenges.

The relevance of your additional 'context' is what has already been established in this thread in that while animal foods are deemed part of the instincto diet, its possible to form a diet that marginalizes these foods based on the taste or appeal of others.

Temporarily and in some special cases only. Animal food should be an important part of our nutrition and it's the view of GCB and early collaborators. But of course, you know better what the instincto nutrition is than the ones who have practicing it for several decades.  

By that logic alone it becomes necessary to criticize others who eat meats or quantities 'prematurely' or 'scientifically' or go in for other foods or practices to improve their health that are discounted by instincto dogma?

I don’t criticize anyone. It seems it’s rather you who relentlessly criticize the instincto theory without even knowing what you’re talking about.

for following approaches that don't believe any combination of dates and other dried fruits with nuts and some meat is going to be healthier than a carefully researched diet (or even carry the results of a cooked junk diet) because they are wrong from the get go with their 'neolithic' practices and theorizing?

?    

[KD]

man, you are consistently dishonest and you can see it here. you made the claim and your own quote proves you flat out lied. My selection was enough to prove that point and I had no interest in framing instincto as a vegetarian diet so this again is a dishonest tactic. You never EVER frame things from your perspective and never change your views when proven wrong. you consistently plug these opinions as fact throughout the forums including the primal forum which you wrote about 'caveman and the drinking of da water' give a fricken break you total liar or admit your senility. please answer any actual criticism or give any solid proof that you know for certain that your 'guruless' diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here without resorting to defensive BS please for once.

the last part you quoted of mine is blatantly clear, one can have way better effects through a variety of approaches than through an instinco diet, therefore you cannot enter into every thread saying all one needs to do is smell food eat whatever they like - and to discount other foods or practices the like until you have actual evidence as this is harmful advice to the health seeker. Despite whatever diet one might formulate that might be healthful or ideal from instinco principles the dogma and attempts at replication disregard many healthful and possibly superior paths.

May I remain you that what I say is based on 24 years personal experience of eating 100% raw and on exchanges of information with a couple of friends who have
Temporarily and in some special cases only. Animal food should be an important part of our nutrition and it's the view of GCB and early collaborators. But of course, you know better what the instincto nutrition is than the ones who have practicing it for several decades.  

I know enough to spot bullshit backtracking on things a novice would spot and also constant pushing of dogmatic dangerous thinking on others particularly when people are beginning the diet and have no use for what amounts usually to refinement strategies.

[KD]

I didn’t read AV and therefore I do not comment about his ideas because before I take a stand on a subject, I want to know all about it and as much as possible experiment it myself. I just mention that dairy consumption is typically Neolithic, which seems to be a fact that none seriously challenges.

from: What to drink if there's no raw milk?

I didn't know that. What's the reason not to drink plain water? AFAIK, most animals drink plain water and all our ancestors obviously did.

Cheers
Francois

two birds one stone with the lie and the general improper advice. I don't see how you cannot understand the problem here on many fronts: being disrespectful, not knowing what you are talking about, and then quoting something irrelevant to contemporary health particulary for people on that diet. Then there was the whole distaster where you cliamed it was absolutely impossible to extract milk from an animal, have you conceded to that yet or will it come up again in 2 months that it is impossible? If I got in an argument with 40 year cooked macrobiotic practitioners who felt alive and amazing, I can't use science and their physical states to asses their programs? Take their word for it? good grief.

[Iguana]

man, you are consistently dishonest (…) you flat out lied. (…) this again is a dishonest tactic. (…) you total liar or admit your senility. please answer any actual criticism or give any solid proof that you know for certain that your 'guruless' diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here without resorting to defensive BS please for once.

Why would I have to prove such a thing? I don’t think I ever pretended that “my guruless diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here”.

the last part you quoted of mine is blatantly clear, one can have way better effects through a variety of approaches than through an instinco diet,

Here you’re just doing what you accuse me to do! Should I ask you: please give any solid proof that you know for certain that any other method discussed here will yield better results than the instincto?!!

therefore you cannot enter into every thread saying all one needs to do is smell food eat whatever they like - and to discount other foods or practices the like until you have actual evidence as this is harmful advice to the health seeker. Despite whatever diet one might formulate that might be healthful or ideal from instinco principles the dogma and attempts at replication disregard many healthful and possibly superior paths.

I can enter every thread I like and write what I want, just like you actually do.

I know enough to spot bullshit backtracking on things a novice would spot and also constant pushing of dogmatic dangerous thinking on others particularly when people are beginning the diet and have no use for what amounts usually to refinement strategies.

What is dangerous is your stance: you’re experimenting some very new nutritional principles that no one knows what will be the effect after 10 years. The instincto has been developed since 1965 and  practiced by hundreds of people, children were born and have perfectly grown up, some are now in their 30’s and still eating instincto without any problem. So I think any concern of a danger is irrelevant.   

[TylerDurden]

To be fair, any and all diets usually have only 2 possible ways to justify themselves:- personal anecdotes/testimonials and scientific studies. Rawpalaeodiets, like Instincto, do, unusually, have some further evolutionary proof of sorts(re no wild animal ever cooking its food etc.), but there are possible arguments against that, just as anyone can make up a seemingly convincing argument against the other 2 methods. Ultimately, what it boils down to is this is a rawpalaeodiet forum so it is hardly surprising to find people not happy with the notion of raw-milk consumption, macrobiotics or whatnot.Nothing wrong with that.


As regards the whole raw-milk consumption in the palaeolithic era notion, that was wrongly used by pro-raw-dairy advocates to suggest that raw milk-consumption was somehow normal or an everyday event. In actual fact, only pregnant females could have been used for obtaining raw milk(and then only seasonally due to mating/breeding patterns) -plus, in an era before domestication, I don't see how raw milk could have been that easily obtained -oh, and the udders of modern, domesticated cattle are highly oversized due to millenia of inbreeding, so udders of wild aurochs(ancestors of modern cattle) would have been smaller in proportion to the body .  A similiar argument has been recently used for palaeo-era grains-consumption (which Cordain convincingly debunked in 1 essay).

[Iguana]

have you conceded to that yet or will it come up again in 2 months that it is impossible? If I got in an argument with 40 year cooked macrobiotic practitioners who felt alive and amazing, I can't use science and their physical states to asses their programs? Take their word for it? good grief.

After watching the video Miles provided, yes I have conceded that a little bit of milk can come out from a killed female. I let you search for the link, this time.

[KD]

Why would I have to prove such a thing? I don’t think I ever pretended that “my guruless diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here”.

total lie. and if there is any truth to that, you should frame 90% of your posts to reflect this.

Here you’re just doing what you accuse me to do! Should I ask you: please give any solid proof that you know for certain that any other method discussed here will yield better results than the instincto?!!

yeah because I actually am the one with the experience with a variety of these approaches, whereas you do often - frequently - comment on things you have 0 experience with.
Then there is all of the points I raised in my first post today and all the other points that get raised by myself and others that go unanswered. I show my results everyday rather than preach and I don't nitpick at others unless they have the same transparent ego driven bullshit behind them, aside from that I don't think its appropriate to say any food or tactic is wrong ever. I'm pretty sure I have made that impression.

I can enter every thread I like and write what I want, just like you actually do.

no that is not true either. I have limitations of what kind of things I say based on respect for other people. seems like common sense. not to mention you just lied yet again about  not commenting when you don't have all the information and now try to cover it up with 'I can do whatever I want' like a child

What is dangerous is your stance: you’re experimenting some very new nutritional principles that no one knows what will be the effect after 10 years. The instincto has been developed since 1965 and  practiced by hundreds of people, children were born and have perfectly grown up, some are now in their 30’s and still eating instincto without any problem. So I think any concern of a danger is irrelevant.  

other people are not you and have pressing health concerns sometimes. I've said time and time again that one of the possible benefits of instincto is that everyone is unique, and peoples requirements change, however the mechanism cannot possibly accommodate for this and again proves to produce the expected poor results in comparison to other approaches. so these can't then be used as reasons over an over to criticize such 'artificial' approaches. the burden of the proof is still on you.

people eat all kinds of things without any problem, its the people in poor health that need the widest range of strategies and not the narrowest. lol a bit @ since 1965.

---
as for the milk thing, merely an illustration of blind reticence than a validation of milk consumption.

[Iguana]

 I'm going to sleep now. I got other things to do than spending all my evening and night answering to your aggressive and abusive posts.

[KD]

ok night man. As always we'll see what is what in the welcomming forum and other general nitpicks. perhaps now that we have some of this on record like "I don’t think I ever pretended that “my guruless diet will yield better results than any other method discussed here”. " maybe we'll all sleep better.

[KD]

To be fair, any and all diets usually have only 2 possible ways to justify themselves:- personal anecdotes/testimonials and scientific studies. Rawpalaeodiets, like Instincto, do, unusually, have some further evolutionary proof of sorts(re no wild animal ever cooking its food etc.), but there are possible arguments against that, just as anyone can make up a seemingly convincing argument against the other 2 methods. Ultimately, what it boils down to is this is a rawpalaeodiet forum so it is hardly surprising to find people not happy with the notion of raw-milk consumption, macrobiotics or whatnot. Nothing wrong with that.

I could have easily used fruiratians who have raised their childen 100% raw who are still alive. Likely in the real world I would be arguing with some kind of cooked food/alternative health proponent. I was saying that 'show me the money' or  basic science obviously trumps being a walking stiff with a brilliant idea. The below makes the diet sound like living with treatable Legionnaires' disease. I mean to me its something of a miracle that people survive 30 years on a SWD but not to other people of course and shouldn't be quoted as their success story.

People are largely going to be coming to this diet with the hopes of better than average health or climbing out of terrible conditions and mere proof of being alive still after such blatant isolative practices does not cut it. Since there is in a sense lots of long term successes on a variety of raw approaches, it seems even more sense to listen to the people who are experimenting alot of in short term as opposed to validation through seniority. The dangers are of course not in deficiencies that are absent in other approaches but in excesses and in not supplying the necessary tools at the right time because they are excluded from the get go.

If Wai lives another 50 years I will still not follow his/her diet. I'm neither carnivore, ZC or primal dieter or perhaps even paleo but I eat any and all things that might be usefull no matter their origin or process. I would take any quick fix regardless of source if it actually worked and I think ultimately most people feel that way but they believe this leads to paleo nutrition. In short, my approach to nutrition according to instincto is incorrect. but I see far more people in those camps being criticized for their dietary leanings or illegid failures than people who eat dates and nuts and things despite the latter being the gross minority. Has anyone here been scolded for eating one food at a time?

 

What is dangerous is your stance: you’re experimenting some very new nutritional principles that no one knows what will be the effect after 10 years. The instincto has been developed since 1965 and  practiced by hundreds of people, children were born and have perfectly grown up, some are now in their 30’s and still eating instincto without any problem. So I think any concern of a danger is irrelevant.  

[TylerDurden]

People are largely going to be coming to this diet with the hopes of better than average health or climbing out of terrible conditions and mere proof of being alive still after such blatant isolative practices does not cut it. Since there is in a sense lots of long term successes on a variety of raw approaches, it seems even more sense to listen to the people who are experimenting alot of in short term as opposed to validation through seniority. The dangers are of course not in deficiencies that are absent in other approaches but in excesses and in not supplying the necessary tools at the right time because they are excluded from the get go.

  You are overlooking 2 rather important points.  First of all, the longer someone has been on a particular diet, the more info they get over the years than any newbie could possibly gain within a short period. I have certainly found that people with more years of RVAF diet experience than I have ever had, have usually shown more knowledge than me in certain matters. Plus, newbies constantly make mistakes  in the first few years - I was much like that, given my raw dairy experiments etc.

The other point re surviving for decades on a RVAF diet is particularly important as one of the key urban myths stated about raw animal food diets in the media is that anyone trying such a diet is sure, sooner or later, to die in horrible agony from bacterial food-poisoning or infestation from parasites. So, having people around who have been doing RVAF diets for decades without encountering such severe problems is actually a lot more effective in dispelling such absurd myths than people who have only experimented with RVAF diets for a few years.

[KD]

i'm not overlooking that. I think those are both legitimate points of course but personally i'm no longer interesting in proving the validly of the lifestyle but in doing the most effective lifestyle for my goals. To me this seems more crucial. I'd like to think that i'll have more wisdom in the future but I believe the best wisdom is that people should have a wide spectrum of tools in front of them and be able to make their own mistakes and own decisions and not be pummeled with alot of ideas on what is good or bad when no one really knows. of course if you are choosing between the same person at two levels in life the choice is obvious, but at the end of the day people that have been doing the diet for only few years - while they might not have all the answers or long term solutions- are perhaps not going to be as reliable in certain respects but they might have more in common with a person starting out or present a more suitable model just based on what they have gone through. Success is basically irrelevant if we arn't quantifying things. if there is 'successful' breatharians and fruitarians, who really cares. Doug Graham claims to have 30+ years experience, ditto Aajonus, these alone justify a diet?

[goodsamaritan]

KD,  I don't see the point why you are so condescending upon Instincto.
If it's not for you, then it's not for you.

I for example can't do most dairy but I don't go ranting against Primal diet just because I can't do dairy.

[KD]

KD,  I don't see the point why you are so condescending upon Instincto.
If it's not for you, then it's not for you.

I for example can't do most dairy but I don't go ranting against Primal diet just because I can't do dairy.

you just cited the exact reason. I think its best to keep the complaints in one place, as opposed to me lecturing iguana every time he posts completely negative alienating nonsense in every post to other WOEs, particularly the welcoming forum which is for the ENTIRE site and not just a single methodology of raw. If people did this from Primal camps or pemmican or vegan or any other thing, they would be removed. Its a total double standard. I could give a huge shit about instincto if it remained in this forum. My whole involvement came from another thread that poured into this topic and continues to come from other areas which I have already pointed out as inappropriate. I wouldn't feel the need to engage negatively with any lifestyle including instincto if they didn't resort to the same tactics of every fruitarian I have ever met in referencing what is 'natural' over every other persons experience and discounting everything that does not fit their own invented definition. You can take the same 'iguana' and have in parallel universes one that eats salt or one that does not and they could equally argue that they were dong the best approach. People need to have quantifiable evidence of superiority before they say this or that is bad. I am not a moderator but CK has said the same thing in regard to roony, william etc...its totally one thing to claim what is good or bad from your own experience of BOTH, but not to say the same zombie line is best for everyone - which is exactly your viewpoint I believe. I think you are either consciously or not turning a blind eye to alot of activity if you think i'm just ranting about issues unique to instincto not being for me. The issue is that people should model their own lifestyles and not force them upon others. This criticism is entirely separate from any attempts at criticizing peoples right to make their own choices for themselves. These choices I would not care about or comment on even if I secretly thought they were wrong or whatever.

[TylerDurden]

The trouble is that most of us have given such advice to newbies in the welcome forum or in reply to 1st posts on other forums here.If someone has been encountering problems and has been consuming raw milk, I have routinely suggested that they cut out raw dairy, given my own experience. I have even sometimes mentioned cautions against raw dairy when the person had not yet stated having any general problems(something along the lines of mentioning in passing re problems with raw dairy being a common problem in RVAF diet, so suggesting caution etc.). And it's the same with many other members, not just william. We all like to offer our own experience, so we all give conflicting advice re the benefits of raw, zero-carb, raw omnivorous palaeo, primal diet etc..Perfectly natural, and newbies can then choose which path to follow, depending on whether their experiences match 1 or more other peoples' accounts/studies or whatever. And Iguana is actually very laid-back, not another william clone at all. I mean there is no william-like rubbish from him  about non-Instinctos being somehow evil and the like.

What would be ghastly is if we were all rather vague and suggested trying out a variety of different dietary ideas, but never strongly recommending any particular one. I doubt that would inspire confidence, as it would suggest that none of us were very convinced that our particular dietary combinations worked(indeed other groups which adopted that neutral approach usually appear to have failed in the end due to lack of interest among members). More to the point, we are largely separated from each other by 100s or 1000s of miles from each other, so it is rather difficult to impose one's views on others - ultimately, everyone makes their own decisions.

[KD]

sigh. you are missing the point. I've already conceded in the past that since the umbrella of the site is indeed paleo that what you are saying is fine in regard to milk or blatantly non raw stuff (even if people are just listing their diet and hold no particular view- I guess) particular if people DO have experience with them and arn't just quoting from some concept about what is right.

the issues I brought up are separate and include the response to you about GCB NEVER mentioning problems with too much meat or being at all close to veganism are just not right and similar things consistently distort other conversations into instincto arguments and are never conceded. The comments in the primal forum were just not accurate and reflected nothing other than the dogma of instinco, and then I have to get in an argument about whether instincto is indeed dogmatic? why should I have to waste my time like this? then there is extreme assurededness that so-and-so had cut open an animal and couldn't take out milk therefore it was IMPOSSIBLE in paleo times, again even if it is admitted now you can see the problem with this typical hygienic attempt to use any strategy possible to disprove other peoples WOEs.

The cover up above about saying 'I can do what I wish in any forum and say anything' - after literally just saying that its not right to enter into discussions not knowing the whole story - is just not appropriate or true. Other people can't just make stuff up without being challenged, and they shouldn't be able to say the same stuff over and over if there is no evidence behind it or particularly if it isn't even applicable. Its not just the newbies, why should people in the high meat threads have to listen to mixing the same high meats with the same animal? if someone said that everyone had to mix high meat with 'lubrication formula' they would get a pass? over and over again?

If I suddenly welcomed every member with The Bears gospel or suggesting everyone eat 30 bananas a day, it would be all over. This isn't an issue of dairy consumption or letting people do whatever they please, its about not using the typical hygienic closed minded remarks to bully people in to paradigms that are not accurate then claiming the reverse that other things are too restrictive or artificial and don't work. Loren Lockman posts over and over about his 20+ year success on raw fruit diets to 'prove' his take on calorie restriction. To me this is absolutely identical to saying, I that now only 'I' but 'you' don' have to worry about macronutrient ratios or protein intake or any other thing because 'I' don't have any 'problems' without actually quantifying or addressing the science underneath. If someone just said that they don't do these things and don't experience drastic health problems and do ok, then that is a completely different frame.

the real unfortunate result is you have the Matt Stones and other folks who actually can produce better results on paper and in the flesh doing often abhorrent things, making any long term efforts seems just like arduous orthorexia. People are looking for the best strategies, so its not about saying do whatever, exactly, its about showing clearly what kind of results come from what, not constantly evading questions and playing the same script over and over.