Explain Instincto Diet Fully #2

[TylerDurden]

Iguana has, though, at times provided links to scientific claims, studies or books to back his claims - nor does he go over the top like william who suggested that we could become immortal via raw, zero-carb diets etc..As for Matt Stone, there are a number of reasons(based on scientific studies among others) why I find his claims pretty dubious.- I mean, compared to someone more science-based like Cordain or Eades, he isn't really too reliable.

I'm anyway none too worried re strict adherence to a particular dietary paradigm. I am after all well aware that there are a number of Primal Dieters who believe absolutely 100 percent of everything AV says, despite some efforts of mine in the past, and some of the less than reliable claims of AV. That's their choice - I am sure that some of them may have had no issues whatsoever with raw dairy or anything else that AV recommends, so as long as it works for them, it's not my concern. I'm not going to be ever able to convince the really hardcore believers, anyway, and, besides, I secretly like the notion of a wide variety of different dietary viewpoints within rawpalaeo, Instincto, primal or otherwise.

[KD]

Some of the people on the primal forums are equally insufferable and possibly even more dogmatic, who cares. Its certainly not an environment I want to be around or learn from so I won't post there even if I was interested. two wrongs don't make a right and this isn't about which philosophies are best or even right at this point. If you recognize people make a number of things work,then obviously people can't stand behind being alive as any kind of defense. I'm sure there are plenty of scientific articles that validate a raw highly omnivorous diet, but we need the minutiae to say the actual methods will produce whatever needs the person wants whether that is overcoming specific disease to athletic pursuits in comparison to other approaches. Many leaders who are in the vegan community for the same amount of time, as well as Aajonus as well as a huge component of the traditional paleo and primal communities have millions of studies on the harmful nature of high fruit diets down to specifics. Many people live for the same periods on all fruit, so again who cares particularly if many of them ended up living tortured lives that died prematurely.

If people are actually just sharing their experiences, its not a problem. If people are making blanket statements about nature which are wrong, or trying to pull from nature to apply to all complex situations of which they don't - and stating these as facts, this is the same as making claims about immortality as far as I am concerned. In many ways its worse considering its actually disguised in a way to make people feel stupid or inadequate, when people are in fact far more intelligent in applying critical thinking to situations on top of how things seem to appear in nature. you seem to always turn these things about dairy or PD stuff, but again how about recommending 30 bananas or Coprophagia to all the new members? To me the double standard is considered acceptable because there is a huge shift towards a more centrist omnivory - which I almost agree with - but to me there is a certain ethics and general policy that is being ignored for this reason.

[TylerDurden]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I, for one, do not view Instincto as being anywhere near as bad as coprophagia or cooked diets, indeed it avoids many of the pitfalls associated with cooked diets or non-palaeodiets, and is (mostly) in agreement with a rawpaleodiet in general ideas.

Come to think of it, Iguana  mentions eating things like raw moufflon etc., so can hardly be considered anti-meat, as an individual.

[Iguana]

(...) but again how about recommending 30 bananas or Coprophagia to all the new members? To me the double standard is considered acceptable because there is a huge shift towards a more centrist omnivory - which I almost agree with - but to me there is a certain ethics and general policy that is being ignored for this reason.

  You just keep on writing and writing endless intricate phrases and irrelevant stuff which is inappropriate here, wasting your time and ours. If you want explanations or have questions about the instincto theory and practice, this is the right thread. For other subjects such as expressing you personal resent with me,  you can go somewhere else or PM your diatribes directly to me.

[KD]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I, for one, do not view Instincto as being anywhere near as bad as coprophagia or cooked diets, indeed it avoids many of the pitfalls associated with cooked diets or non-palaeodiets, and is (mostly) in agreement with a rawpaleodiet in general ideas.

Come to think of it, Iguana  mentions eating things like raw moufflon etc., so can hardly be considered anti-meat, as an individual.

on what terms can you prove these things are worse for each individual, not sweeping studies about cooked food toxins or dairy allergies? there are people that eat 30 bananas a day that claim to have excellent results but they can't repeatably post the same stuff without question. Would it matter if the same person with the same definitive mindset decided to eat a little bit of meat. I know someone that was in grahams book that is doing that very same thing but is still an asshole. its not an anti-meat thing...jesus...the notion that a little meat contradicts the documented issues with high fruit diets is incredibly naive - the issues high fruit veg run into are far worse than standard cooked vegetarian diets and have VERY LITTLE to do with deficiency in the way we would think about it- but I really don't want to get in those specific arguments anymore.


The precise point is health is not about just avoiding bad shit, its about doing things. Countless people go astray just trying to avoid bad shit and do whatever. some people might go astray following protocols but at the end of the day there is going to be a formula for success that goes beyond avoiding wrongs. this is so crucial to understanding the difference between making a comment that is helpful or one that comes form dogma. To come into an argument and say that people are wrong for going by macro nutrients over instinct is incorrect and inappropriate if they can not prove the results are superior. I don't see how you can debate this or say because it otherwise ignores 'neolithic' food it is ok. this is just wrong. It doesn't even make sense the nwith the acknowledgment that people on other approaches could do well or better, how would that be possible with doing all the things labeled wrong?

You just keep on writing and writing endless intricate phrases and irrelevant stuff which is inappropriate here, wasting your time and ours. If you want explanations or have questions about the instincto theory and practice, this is the right thread. For other subjects such as expressing you personal resent with me,  you can go somewhere else or PM your diatribes directly to me.

ok man, please begin answering my questions in this thread that were unanswered previously. Or start with the ones within the last 24 hours that you ignored to say I somehow slandered your GCB quote of which the exact information was included in the quote you posted. you are the one attacking my arguments, not the content, while you have contradicted yourself just in the last 24 hours visibly.

[Iguana]

First, if you want me to answer your questions, you should stop insulting me and apologize for treating me a liar and dishonest guy. Next, express them in a clear and easily understandable way, so that I wont have to spend hours trying to figure out what you mean. Third, avoid asking 50 intricate questions in the same post. Fourth, wait until I find the time to answer.

I’m just volunteering  here to help people, I’m not a shareholder of “Instincto Inc.” and I’m under no mandatory obligation to answer any question, moreover to every warped  obscure point you belligerently raise. I actually have a lot of work and I may answer or may not, according to my good will, time availability, knowledge  or ignorance.

And I suggest you once again to read GCB’s book and calmly think about it before wasting time in writing endless posts.   

[KD]

First, if you want me to answer your questions, you should stop insulting me and apologize for treating me a liar and dishonest guy. Next, express them in a clear and easily understandable way, so that I wont have to spend hours trying to figure out what you mean. Third, avoid asking 50 intricate questions in the same post. Fourth, wait until I find the time to answer.

I’m just volunteering  here to help people, I’m not a shareholder of “Instincto Inc.” and I’m no under no mandatory obligation to answer any question, moreover to every warped  obscure point you belligerently raise. I actually have a lot of work and I may answer or may not, according to my good will, time availability, knowledge  or ignorance.

And I suggest you once again to read GCB’s book and calmly think about it before wasting time in writing endless posts.  

please analyze the rage in your own responses first my friend and I think you might find mine more appropriate and content driven than yours which have basically 0 but defensiveness. My first post in the last 24 hours could have been my last if you merely addressed the content and the undeniable notion that you often will present your opinions as facts and in inappropriate settings and have no proof that what other people are doing is in fact wrong when you present it as such. In addition, i'm pretty sure you have presented yourself dishonestly numerous times, as well as skirted over issues you know you cannot defend or prove multiple times in this thread and elsewhere. I really don't expect you to ever answer any questions of which there are no reasonable answers or change your habits, so why would I waste even more energy PMing you? At least here its on record that you don't feel like you have to answer to other people. I can see that it is very easy for you dismiss what I write for using terms like Coprophagia, but I'd 100% honestly eat a little shit then follow such dogmatic ideas about the world that would jeopardize my health and others in more precarious spots. I'm not responsible for the fact that conversations go on without you or that English isn't your first language. Pretty sure much of what I raised is not obscure to the average person here who can understand ideas like

"we need the minutiae to say the actual methods will produce whatever needs the person wants whether that is overcoming specific disease to athletic pursuits in comparison to other approaches. "

or that there is something wrong with saying "I can enter every thread I like and write what I want".

[Iguana]

i'm pretty sure you have presented yourself dishonestly numerous times (...) At least here its on record that you don't feel like you have to answer to other people.

Yeah, sure I don't feel that I have to answer to people who are continuously insulting me.  

[KD]

Yeah, sure I don't feel that I have to answer to people who are continuously insulting me.  

or anyone else on the forum who quesitons instincto ever....with any amount of effort that can't be answered in blanket statements.

good to know you are happy with how you are coming across.

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.

for the record your ego is too precious to respond to this as anything but a personal attack?..and you have no responsibility for the subsequent posts. umm ok. at least i'll take my responsibility.

[Iguana]

Amiable questions gets courteous and comprehensive answers:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56478/#msg56478
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56665/#msg56665
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg56985/#msg56985

But your post

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.

looks like a stack of blatant affirmations rather than questions.

[KD]

Amiable questions gets courteous and comprehensive answers:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56478/#msg56478
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg56665/#msg56665
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/instinctoanopsology/explain-instincto-diet-fully-2/msg56985/#msg56985

are you seriously posting that you have answered quesitons before? looks like maybe conservatively a 1.3/3 in my book as far as being free of what i'm talking about. I won't stoop to posting the the other 500 or so. I'm referring to my first post in this thread in months, and you tried to frame it in an incredibly dishonest way which anyone can see instead of actually addressing the points. If you want to pic and choose what you respond to and throw out insults yourself, don't complain about the fallout.

[Iguana]

See previous page, I just edited my answer.

Now, I'm fed up with you. It seems you have you nothing else to do than typing and typing over again on your keyboard, flooding this thread and others as well. 

[KD]

See previous page, I just edited my answer.

oh man...ANYTHING you can say but actually responding to the points raised. people respond to points all the time on forums, its called discussion. but you do what you want whenever you please..I understand

how am i doing anything but responding to your antics? you havn't once addressed anything i wrote re instincto or your posts on my complaits about other postings, yet i constantly specifically respond to you. I should be the one upset, but am not. always the same. always taking time to respond carefully and adress what people write.

[Iguana]

I should be the one upset, but am not. always the same. always taking time to respond carefully and adress what people write.

Good on you. Have a Merry X-mas.

[TylerDurden]

on what terms can you prove these things are worse for each individual, not sweeping studies about cooked food toxins or dairy allergies? there are people that eat 30 bananas a day that claim to have excellent results but they can't repeatably post the same stuff without question. Would it matter if the same person with the same definitive mindset decided to eat a little bit of meat. I know someone that was in grahams book that is doing that very same thing but is still an asshole. its not an anti-meat thing...jesus...the notion that a little meat contradicts the documented issues with high fruit diets is incredibly naive - the issues high fruit veg run into are far worse than standard cooked vegetarian diets and have VERY LITTLE to do with deficiency in the way we would think about it- but I really don't want to get in those specific arguments anymore.

That is merely your opinion. Mine and plenty of others, though, have only had issues(when raw vegan) with deficiencies in the long-term, and not had  other short-term issues not related to deficiency as such - not suggesting that applies to all, but you can't just blindly state such as a fact. 

As for the issues re cooked foods affecting individuals, you have a very long way to go before you can suggest that cooked foods are healthy for 1 or 2 individuals in all cases:- there are now many, many thousands of studies focusing on heat-created toxins such as AGEs etc. Some of those studies focus on the specific damage done to human cells in vitro, so one cannot claim that they are only generalised studies or whatever nonsense.Plus, the (pro-bacteria)hygiene hypothesis is now a mainstream theory. And 2 of the types of heat-created toxins are heterocyclic amines(a known toxin also present in cigarette-smoke) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(also present in cigarette-smoke and a well-known by-product of coal- and tar-pits and a known chemical pollutant). For someone therefore to convincingly claim that these toxins are perfectly harmless for him/her, he/she would also have to prove that smoking was always good for the  individual - a rather difficult prospect given the vast amount of scientific data focusing on the negative effects of both cooking and smoking.

As for dairy, there are certain well-known statistics re 75 percent of the world's population being lactose-intolerant - even for those who aren't allergic, they are still affected by the hormones in dairy to some extent(difficult to prove they are completely immune to hormonal effects), and of course the nutritional profile of such dairy is to get an infant herd-animal to adult size within a short period, so cannot ever be an ideal food for humans, by comparison to raw meats etc.

The precise point is health is not about just avoiding bad shit, its about doing things. Countless people go astray just trying to avoid bad shit and do whatever. some people might go astray following protocols but at the end of the day there is going to be a formula for success that goes beyond avoiding wrongs. this is so crucial to understanding the difference between making a comment that is helpful or one that comes form dogma. To come into an argument and say that people are wrong for going by macro nutrients over instinct is incorrect and inappropriate if they can not prove the results are superior. I don't see how you can debate this or say because it otherwise ignores 'neolithic' food it is ok. this is just wrong. It doesn't even make sense then with the acknowledgment that people on other approaches could do well or better, how would that be possible with doing all the things labeled wrong?

Well, I have always viewed a raw, palaeolithic diet as a diet which is ALL about avoiding things:- specifically avoiding cooked/processed foods and non-palaeo foods. Indeed, given the many different interpretations of what "palaeo" means on cooked-palaeo forums, I have stated previously that the only safe interpretation, therefore, is what "palaeo" is NOT.

As for the issue re dogma, I also am none too fond on focusing on macronutrients as that can sometimes  lead to excessive  obsession with daily dietary calculations and have often liked to play things by feel in the past. I wish someone had told me to trust my instincts right when I first started as I would have cut out all raw dairy much earlier from my diet instead of constantly looking pathetically for affirmation from Aajonus and others re how to get used to raw dairy.

*OH, there was some mention re my mention of primal dieters. I was actually referring to a few  of the primal dieters on rawpaleoforum, not other primal diet forums elsewhere.*

[KD]

That is merely your opinion. Mine and plenty of others, though, have only had issues(when raw vegan) with deficiencies in the long-term, and not had  other short-term issues not related to deficiency as such - not suggesting that applies to all, but you can't just blindly state such as a fact.  

Tyler I really don't see how dairy or toxins has anything to do with this as usual. huge portions of the world live on a vegetarian diet to some degree of existence/health, whereas many people find it difficult to living on raw veg diets in the 1-2.3-5.5-10 year etc..range. Sure the vegetarian aspect is a problem from our perspective alone, but there are issues related to raw fruit that don't apply to even less than 'ideal' neolithic foods apparently. I have more information on this but it seems kind of overkill at this juncture. That is the point and the reason one can't make blanket statements about such things as good or bad even for people trying to follow an optimal diet. a 100% raw diet of whatever combinations MIGHT not be as healthful as diets with the things your are criticising. So to expand on that..just because someone is eating raw paleo doesn't mean they are going to be having the greatest results if they aren't eating the most appropriate diet for their needs. Unless one can prove for certain that following instincto leads to that result over all other approaches, it has no place in discrediting other strategies in other forums without stating it as an opinon or just what works for that person and must provide actual measurable results if questioned.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler I really don't see how dairy or toxins has anything to do with this as usual. huge portions of the world live on a vegetarian diet to some degree of existence/health, whereas many people find it difficult to living on raw veg diets in the 1-2.3-5.5-10 year etc..range. Sure the vegetarian aspect is a problem from our perspective alone, but there are issues related to raw fruit that don't apply to even less than 'ideal' neolithic foods apparently. I have more information on this but it seems kind of overkill at this juncture. That is the point and the reason one can't make blanket statements about such things as good or bad even for people trying to follow an optimal diet. a 100% raw diet of whatever combinations MIGHT not be as healthful as diets with the things your are criticising. So to expand on that..just because someone is eating raw paleo doesn't mean they are going to be having the greatest results if they aren't eating the most appropriate diet for their needs. Unless one can prove for certain that following instincto leads to that result over all other approaches, it has no place in discrediting other strategies in other forums without stating it as an opinon or just what works for that person and must provide actual measurable results if questioned.

Re comment "So to expand on that..just because someone is eating raw paleo doesn't mean they are going to be having the greatest results if they aren't eating the most appropriate diet for their needs":-  That's fine. Obviously, everybody has a different take based on their own experimentation:- some people thrive on just a raw, omnivorous palaeo diet, others only on raw zero-carb or the primal diet or even on the instincto diet. So, IMO, it is only natural that in the welcome forum I often suggest a raw, omnivorous diet, PP/Lex/Wodgina or some other RZCer advocate a raw, zero-carb diet and Iguana an Instincto Diet, based on our experiences etc.. Also, the definition of Instincto seems to change from person to person:- I know of Instincto communities in Germany, for example, who view Instincto as being 100 percent raw vegan, while some other Instinctos eat mostly raw meats(though I'll grant that the core eat mostly raw plant foods plus a much smaller percentage of raw animal foods).

As for the cooked-vegetarianism/raw vegan comparison, that isn't really fair - an honest comparison would be between cooked vegetarianism and raw vegetarianism, or cooked vegan to raw vegan. I suspect that, given the nutrient profiles and the effects of cooking(and my own experiences and others'), the raw equivalent would be the winner, healthwise, in each case, though not, of course, in all aspects as antinutrients in veg get reduced via cooking.

But the point is that it is reasonable, given scientific data and the lack of problem foods like dairy/cooked foods, to assume that some people thrive long-term on a diet of lots of raw plant foods plus a few raw animal foods, since such a diet could still provide all the necessary nutrients. SkinnyDevil appears to be one such example of a success on such a diet.

[sabertooth]

I follow some aspects of instincto, even before I read much about it I began to tune my diet based on what I was craving and also began to avoid foods I believed were causing me problems. I did need the support of differing view points in order to affirm some of my suspicions about how dairy was not optimal or that one could live well on an extremely low carb diet.

I believe that all view points can give valuable insight into what makes for an optimal diet, but in the end it is up to the individual to filter out what does not fit into ones personal needs, which is often a very difficult task if you consider how different one person can be from the next in regards to nutritional requirements and tolerances. Also many people have been so altered by past issues that they may not be able to trust there instincts and really do need to be guided by the advice of others in order to find out what works for them. If it wasn't for this forrum I would not of so quickly discovered that there are better alternatives to the primal diet that I first began to experiment with. I believe that Av has a bit of truth in what he says and does, but I also believe that some of what he recommends does not apply to everyone and for people who cant tolerate dairy and green drinks his protocol could end up causing some problems.

To live a whole lifetime on modern foods can leave us without our senses and unable to trust our instincts. Durring the early adaptions to a paleo diet there are moments were decisions have to be made on very crucial issues and I don't think many people can go by instinct alone, I had some basic intuition about things when I was beginning to adapt, I was driven to heal and once I began to feel better I started to really focus on what I need to do to optimise my diet. This open forrum is the best source out there I have found of information that is on the cutting edge of what works for individuals as well as what doesn't work, in regards to the raw paleo diet. I believe that one must at least consider all that is available when seeking out an optimal path that will lead to a positive  transformation. There are so many variables to success that no one philosophy can possible encapsulate a universal truth when it comes to dietary dogma.

I have many of my own theory's that are somewhat out there. I think many people who attempt this diet and fail are doing something wrong, although because of the limited information they often post, it is hard to make out what the real issue is. Many  people who begin this diet are not willing to give it 100% and they still do things like take harmfull dietry supplements, (even things like synthetic vitamin C can be harmful) I threw out all of my supplements when I began this diet and from my past experience I have become skeptical about the use of synthetic vitamins either taken by supplement or placed into our food as vitamin D is put in Milk. . Some might also hang on to troublesome foods and keep insisting that its good for them even though their health isn't being improved. We cant possibly make healthy recommendations for people who are holding on to some harmful pratice that they refuse to let go of,  considering the limited information that is presented before us.

I think the forrum works best If we all just explain things from our personal experience and then pepper our perspective with reason, derived from our own research and validated by our own practice.

[KD]

As for the cooked-vegetarianism/raw vegan comparison, that isn't really fair - an honest comparison would be between cooked vegetarianism and raw vegetarianism, or cooked vegan to raw vegan. I suspect that, given the nutrient profiles and the effects of cooking(and my own experiences and others'), the raw equivalent would be the winner, healthwise, in each case, though not, of course, in all aspects as antinutrients in veg get reduced via cooking.

there is just huge libraries of information on why this is not the case coming from all levels of 'experts' as well as anecdotal experience whch gets to the core of this raw-whatever beats cooked-or-neolithic-whatever falsity.

Just because one can prove to a large degree on paper that raw food is healthier than cooked or that mono eating is more efficient for digestion does not make these concepts applicable to every situation. this isn't my opinion or something one can even agree to disagree I think either, the results are all around and measurable. This isn't some dairy or cooked food diet validation. the difference between me and dogma is I can eat 100% raw paleo food sequentially and mono and not place emphasis on these being necessary or even beneficial constructs for others' situations - because all situations are complex and because even the science in the end can't account for every variable in the human body.

You are doing the same exact thing as before in putting seniority over those who have made something work over the vast serious documented issues with a variety of things, which is actually THE unfair comparison and can validate ANY approach and should not be fuel for any serious discussion without quantifiable results. What I listed is the vast research amongst various (equally long term) experts as well as massive anecdotal response and just plain common sense. The issue as I said has nothing to do with deficiency (from meat - being vegetarian) or anti-nutrients - you are glazing over all the 'unknowns' as well as the knowns in advanced science unique to raw sugars, detoxification and cleansing and the like which make it possible for cooked diets to be less dangerous. This is so crucial again to understanding why any raw and paleo is better arguments do not work. its too simplistic to assessing the entire equation.

I can recommend a 100% raw diet and recognize that many permutations of 100% raw even if one was to eat the same exact foods as before (if this is possible) will not necessarily result in good health or even superior to what they were doing.

In my opinion, skinnydevil, phil, wodg, and lex are pretty good with saying what works for them and don't phrase things in absolutist terms to others or say just because they are alive that their diet is the best for everyone in all situations without giving concrete evidence. and will repeat as before that anyone suggesting vegan or pemmican options in the welcoming forum would in the very least degenerate into useless and alienating argument for newbies.

The suggestion that people just avoid neolithic food and eat any raw paleo food - assuming paleo foods can include and exclude any number and quantity of foods known as 'paleo' in all kingdoms, is just wrong, and there should be no serious discussion around it. Just because some experts in the PANU, Primal Blueptrint, The Paleo Diet, or ZC etc...might be incorrectly micromanaging their intake, does not in the reverse that a liberal or instinctive approach is superior for nutrition, healing or else unless it can be proven. The difference as to why it is so important for the naturists to disprove others is obvious with what I pointed out in hygiene conversation:

Anyway, this is why its quite common for instance for fruitarians in particular - other then the vegan issue- to attack other WOEs, because unlike peoples variations here on raw paleo, other peoples successes totally invalidate their rationale and definitions for health.

even in non fruitarians you can see this same logic unfortunately

"in spite of X" or "people can be healthy even eating x." without ever acknowledging the foods or routines could be an essential part of the purifying/healing etc...that can not be created any other way.

in other words one single success on any neolithic practice whether it be food or healing protocl through food or otherwise is enough to debunk that in all cases people just need to do what is natural to get well. people just doing natural practices and being alive does not trump that these other things can be totally necessary for health or even survival.

[PaleoPhil]

....In my opinion, skinnydevil, phil, wodg, and lex are pretty good with saying what works for them and don't phrase things in absolutist terms to others or say just because they are alive that their diet is the best for everyone in all situations without giving concrete evidence. ....

Thanks, KD, I try to do that as best I can. I have found Lex's open-minded, non-absolutist style to be generally excellent and I try to learn from it.

One of my worst fears would be for someone to blindly mimic what I'm doing, ignore what their body tells them, and end up ill as a result. It's one reason I originally didn't want to do a journal. I imagine that it's something that every diet or health author/expert/guru must face at some point. No matter how many warnings or caveats an author makes, someone is bound to miss them and instead latch onto certain of her/his ideas and get into trouble. Thus most gurus that have been around long enough have some people attributing cures to them and others blaming the gurus for their ill health.

Another concern of mine is that what works for me today might not work for me years from now and I might end up changing my mind about what's healthy for me and potentially others. For example, I used to think that eating plenty of fruits and veggies was a no brainer, whereas now I think that "no brainer" is a better description of the amount of critical thinking I applied to that assumption.

[TylerDurden]

there is just huge libraries of information on why this is not the case coming from all levels of 'experts' as well as anecdotal experience whch gets to the core of this raw-whatever beats cooked-or-neolithic-whatever falsity.

Just because one can prove to a large degree on paper that raw food is healthier than cooked or that mono eating is more efficient for digestion does not make these concepts applicable to every situation. this isn't my opinion or something one can even agree to disagree I think either, the results are all around and measurable. This isn't some dairy or cooked food diet validation. the difference between me and dogma is I can eat 100% raw paleo food sequentially and mono and not place emphasis on these being necessary or even beneficial constructs for others' situations - because all situations are complex and because even the science in the end can't account for every variable in the human body.

You are doing the same exact thing as before in putting seniority over those who have made something work over the vast serious documented issues with a variety of things, which is actually THE unfair comparison and can validate ANY approach and should not be fuel for any serious discussion without quantifiable results. What I listed is the vast research amongst various (equally long term) experts as well as massive anecdotal response and just plain common sense. The issue as I said has nothing to do with deficiency (from meat - being vegetarian) or anti-nutrients - you are glazing over all the 'unknowns' as well as the knowns in advanced science unique to raw sugars, detoxification and cleansing and the like which make it possible for cooked diets to be less dangerous. This is so crucial again to understanding why any raw and paleo is better arguments do not work. its too simplistic to assessing the entire equation.

Call me a cynic/realist but I do get the impression there is a lot of verbiage here but no real substance to it - sort of argument just for argument's sake. The issue re a particular dietary approach not always working for every single individual is meaningless:- not even Instinctos anyway favour a specific approach, as different Instinctos from different regions eat more or less raw meats according to their beliefs, and many Instinctos constantly change their dietary patterns in accordance with their ever-changing daily instincts, anyway!

As for the issue re cooked foods being supposedly healthier, I have already demolished the notion re mention of heat-created toxins, and many, many other additional factors exist re bacteria , allergenicity etc.. Now, granted in highly unusual circumstances, one can  go to extremes and end up with more problems than on a cooked food diet if one eats a diet of 100 percent raw avocadoes and water, for example, but no one here does such extreme diets, not even the Instinctos. And while there are very unusual physical conditions that certain very rare individuals might have which a rawpalaeodiet could likely never cure,  such as a severely damaged stomach or a unique (gene-based?) inability to digest any kind of fat whatsoever, people here generally advise going to a doctor for surgery or whatever as that is far more effective than a cooked diet could ever be.And that's not taking into account all those wild animals who seem to do fine without needing cooked diets.

I can recommend a 100% raw diet and recognize that many permutations of 100% raw even if one was to eat the same exact foods as before (if this is possible) will not necessarily result in good health or even superior to what they were doing.


In my opinion, skinnydevil, phil, wodg, and lex are pretty good with saying what works for them and don't phrase things in absolutist terms to others or say just because they are alive that their diet is the best for everyone in all situations without giving concrete evidence. and will repeat as before that anyone suggesting vegan or pemmican options in the welcoming forum would in the very least degenerate into useless and alienating argument for newbies.

  Actually, there was a period where Lex was very fanatically anti-carb indeed, going on a personal crusade, along with Satya and others against a certain other (raw omnivorous) member I won't mention. But he mellowed out after a while.

As for this business of comments, I don't think iguana solely said that people should follow his diet just because he'd been doing it for ages. He has mentioned in passing to me on open forum how long he's been doing Instincto, but so do other people sometimes mention how long they've been a RVAFer. As for me, if I had been doing a rawpalaeodiet for as long as 23 years(as Iguana has), I would be quite proud thereof and mention it rather more frequently than Iguana - indeed, I recently have mentioned my doing almost a decade of rawpalaeo in passing, here and there.


The basic point is this:- Instincto is a type of rawpalaeodiet just like any other, and therefore has just as much right to be here on rawpaleoforum as all the other types. Some members here, myself included, have also found that small or large portions of Instincto theories have worked well for them, and that's good enough of a reason to have it here.


I do get the impression, given a past unrelated discussion (re paleo man being stronger/weaker than modern man), that all the above might be motivated more by a personal dislike on your part, of any suggestion to follow "Nature" or "instinct", which is what Instincto is all about.

[/quote]

[PaleoPhil]

Actually, there was a period where Lex was very fanatically anti-carb indeed, going on a personal crusade, along with Satya and others against a certain other (raw omnivorous) member I won't mention. But he mellowed out after a while.

Lex has admitted to past errors. I think KD was referring to Lex's current style, not the past. No point in dredging up old ghosts.

I do think the overall discussion would be improved if it were kept to the facts and avoided insults, and I think this may be part of what Tyler is getting at, right TD? It does seem that this one has gotten overheated.

[TylerDurden]

Lex has admitted to past errors. I think KD was referring to Lex's current style, not the past. No point in dredging up old ghosts.

Well, I just think this thread is meant to be about explaining the Instincto philosophy, and shouldn't be derailed. Naturally, if people have tried Instincto, or parts thereof, they can mention the positive or negative effects they got from it in other threads.

[Iguana]

Call me a cynic/realist but I do get the impression there is a lot of verbiage here but no real substance to it - sort of argument just for argument's sake.

I’m Iguana ex-wife.

Tyler, I think you’re missing KD’s point, which Iguana better understands know after an amiable exchange of PMs in which KD kindly asked him to leave him alone since he had definitely established the indubitable fact he’s been telling all along this thread : Iguanas are horrifying animals with a big head and small muscles (see pic below) and your Iguana is a trolling dishonest liar. KD plainly proved it by the fact that Iguana asked “what’s the reason for not drinking plain water?” on the primal diet section and subsequently wrote “I didn’t read AV and therefore I do not comment about his ideas”.

I do think the overall discussion would be improved if it were kept to the facts and avoided insults, and I think this may be part of what Tyler is getting at, right TD? It does seem that this one has gotten overheated.

Iguana was shortly distressed for being told the truth about what he really is by KD, but now he doesn’t care at all since Iguanas are very dreadful and resilient animals with the toughest skin of every animal on this planet.

Merry Christmas!

[KD]

Call me a cynic

The basic point is this:- Instincto is a type of rawpalaeodiet just like any other, and therefore has just as much right to be here on rawpaleoforum as all the other types. Some members here, myself included, have also found that small or large portions of Instincto theories have worked well for them, and that's good enough of a reason to have it here.

I do get the impression, given a past unrelated discussion (re paleo man being stronger/weaker than modern man), that all the above might be motivated more by a personal dislike on your part, of any suggestion to follow "Nature" or "instinct", which is what Instincto is all about.

ok, you are a cynic. read Fred Bisci, Brian Clement, and Gabriel Cousens who have accumulated over 100 years of research between them on why this does not apply to just avocados and water or usual conditions. I won't even begin to bring up Art Devany, Dr. Harris and others in re: the rest. Although I'm sure you can figure out a way to dismiss the entirely of what I am saying by dwelling on that. The actual health of the diet is totally open to question, that part is not definitive, but the idea that you can make such blanket comments on cooked or neolithic foods over any permutation of raw foods is just false (not my opinion) and exactly because people can't post behind Aajonus or the Bear or Loren Lockman's longevity means no one else should be able to when pressed up against a wall.

sure you can say that is a general personal feeling of mine, absolutely, which makes much of what i'm saying not an all on Iguana specifically but to a particular mindset present and not just in instincto. Clearly you share it with with your constant claims that because you can prove the unfaithfulness of something based on a few studies. That therefore anything that is opposite will be healthier while ignoring pretty much of the exact studies showing the opposite or proved by people who have done 100% raw diets and gone back to 'less ideal' approaches or even healthful things like including animal foods (cooked or raw) to greater success than the orthodoxy they were driven to by gurus and studies of the dangers of cooked foods.

survey this thread in its entirety and you will find multiple times where I acknowledge that the 'diet' itself is not -at least always - dangerous - mostly taking issue to the suggestion to others that in all cases it will be better than other approaches because of some pretention that nature works in some set way that is perfect and for all settings and conditions. even if it does, we need to establish in all cases that this mindset will trump any other man made concept for any desired results, if it is going to be given such carte blanche in other threads regrading a variety of issues in paleo or non-paleo concepts.

Perhaps I should not have posted on combing both the dogmatic and physical issues I have with things to avoid confusion. I have made claims against the diet in physical terms (high fruits) etc..but largely these are indeed my personal beliefs backed up with some sayings of others...butt the parts I listed above where you can claim what is natural, non-neolithic -in comparison to ANYTHING paleo and in any combination is just absolutely false without debate. You don't even have to go to extremes of avocado and water to find multiple counterpoint or personal examples proving the obvious, that wellness isn't so delineated to black and white.

of course there is a place for instincto even in the general discussion but particularly if people are not planning on delving into the listed adjustments and practices necessary to become a full fledged instincto, what good is them discarding their false ratios and egg eating in favor of no ratios and egg smelling? Can one prove this will be the healthy choice for all members in all conditions?

Once again, there is a total difference between saying, "I am a veteran raw foodists and this is what works for me"..and blatantly saying what other people re doing is wrong because it "goes against the nature". So yes i'll admit very much that that is my main issue of which I think takes more importance than any personal feelings good or bad towards individual members.

---

as for the above, whether that is a complete joke on me, its entirely appreciated in spirit.

I would disagree on the toughest skin, thats clearly a joke. my first post a few days contained some definitive and aggressive language, but there was plenty to pick apart without taking it personally, no more than any other discussion here and certainly not in breaking of any forum rules or worthy of personal threats to my gmail on Christmas eve when I had already attempted to break the endless array of back and forth containing literally no actual content or responses to the issues raised other than a equivalent or greater in personal attacks.

cheers, happy hollidays