Instincto Debunking Thread

[TylerDurden]

OK, since GS determined that extreme anti-Instincto posts, such as in recent times, should not be placed in the Instincto forum and put elsewhere, here are the deleted posts, intended for the hot topics forum as it's a controversial topic:-

Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #99 on: Today at 01:00:44 AM »
   Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote from: GCB on Yesterday at 11:39:12 AM
. It is undoubtedly for this reason that the emergent function ensuring nutritional regulation includes a large intrinsic part: the animal limits itself spontaneously with every natural product, because there are frequent situations where the natural products are available in amounts sufficient to endanger its physiological balance and temporary capacity to flee or respond to a predator’s attack. This intrinsic part of the regulation appears by various alliesthesic mechanisms (sense of smell, taste, repletion, dislike, etc): it is precisely what I call the alimentary instinct.
 
It’s in my turn to ask you a question: are there during the year, in the Philippines, periods without wild fruit? Let us point out for Alphagruis that the existence of such periods does not exclude at all the utility – neither in terms of survival capacity and evolution nor in terms of emergent functions –  of regulation mechanisms ensuring nutritional balance during each specific fruit season.
It is true that this thread is named “Explain Instincto Diet Fully”, and that the object should be to explain how and why it functions. But how do want you to calm the detractors who cannot stand Angry the idea that an alimentary instinct does exist?


Very funny.

The guru now tries to wrap his cr*p about his supposed "alimentary instinct that results in perfectly balanced diet" into (unfortunately misunderstood) complex systems science language since I told him about it, rather than the old fashioned (also misunderstood) neodarwinist terms in his former version.

The trouble is that the concepts of instinct and emergence are just mutually exclusive  Cheesy

This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.  
   Report to moderator   Logged

  
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #99 on: Today at 01:34:58 AM »
   Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote from: Paleo Donk on Yesterday at 01:17:54 PM
Perhaps the thread has run its course where we can all take something from it. I think alphagruis' "falsifies instincto" comes across as too strong as you only need one minor point of contention to technically falsify one's way of eating.

Unfortunately there are many many "points" (not minor at all and some of them I dicussed formerly in French speaking forums) that also clearly falsify the instincto dogma, Paleo Donk.

The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.

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

    
« Last Edit: Today at 01:42:01 AM by alphagruis »

  
Re: Explain INstincto Diet Fully
« Reply #101 on: Today at 05:56:40 AM »
   Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote from: alphagruis on Today at 01:00:44 AM
Very funny.(…)
This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.

Well, we’d like to share the screaming laughter of your illustrious colleagues, but of course I understand very well that it would involve so advanced, extremely long and intricate explanations that we, common mortals, will never be able to follow it.

Quote from: alphagruis on Today at 01:34:58 AM
The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.

Sure… especially for the vast majority of instinctos,  who eat large portions of meat, oysters, fish or eggs everyday, or almost everyday !

Here are the words Alphagruis wrote on April 17, 2007:
Ecologie-Alimentaire/message/5553
Quote
Merci François, je suis heureux que tu perçoives mes critiques comme
constructives et j'espère que GCB les percevra ainsi. Mais même si sa
réaction devait être plus "agacée" je comprendrais très bien et cela
n'enlèverais rien à l'estime, l'admiration et la reconnaissance que j'ai
pour lui. Je n'oublie pas qu'il m'a donné les moyens de me débarrasser
définitivement de mes fichus calculs rénaux récidivants en quelques mois
grâce à son instinctothérapie, alors que les sommités infatuées,
prétentieuses, bornées et ignares de l'institution médicale me menaient
joyeusement en bateau depuis 10 ans.

It’s well worth a translation :
Quote
Thank you Francois, I am glad that you perceive my critiques as constructive and I hope that GCB will perceive them as such. But even if his reaction were to be more irritated I will understand very well and that would not remove in any way the respect, admiration and thankfulness I have for him. I do not forget he provided me the means of getting definitively rid of my damned recurrent renal calculus in a few months thanks to his instinctotherapy, whereas the ignoramus full of themselves, pretentious and narrow-minded of the medical institution had been taking me for a ride during 10 years.

No comment.  Grin
Francois"

While this is an anti-Instincto thread, please could all avoid the personal attacks from now on and stick to the science.

[goodsamaritan]

The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.

Sure… especially for the vast majority of instinctos,  who eat large portions of meat, oysters, fish or eggs everyday, or almost everyday !

I've just been on raw paleo diet for 2.5 years and I'm steadily gravitating towards a majority raw meat diet lately. 

Can you explain this bit of wisdom with us new-comers?

What happens when we eat a majority raw animal food diet almost everyday?

[alphagruis]

GS, it appears to me that only the first two sentences in your quote were mine.

The following one

Sure… especially for the vast majority of instinctos,  who eat large portions of meat, oysters, fish or eggs everyday, or almost everyday !

 is not mine and so there is probably a misunderstanding and I can't ansver your questions because I don't understand what you mean actually.

PS. Not all of my posts deleted in the pro-instincto thread seem to have been copied here and, well, whatever happened what appears is hardly understandable. I'm very busy presently but I propose to rewrite some of them in future in order to make things a bit clearer.  

[alphagruis]

Here's a brief review that summarizes my (balanced  ) opinion about Burger's work

As to the instincto movement, it’s likely that Burger, which is a well educated man (musician, physics, mathematics etc), was more or less influenced by Rousseau. It is interesting to note that Burger is initially actually a Swiss citizen from Lausanne, a city located in the French speaking Protestant « Canton de Vaux » to which Geneva, where Rousseau is born, belongs too.

What is most remarkable with Guy-Claude Burger and his instinctotherapy is that it very clearly and unambiguously pointed out already about 40 years ago the RAW PALEO concept :

-raw : As a physicist Burger clearly understood that cooking generates potentially a lot of toxins in the form of damaged or reacted biomolecules and so cleverly proposed to see what happened if one completely abandons this ubiquitous practice. Recent scientific work  nicely confirms the generation of these toxins 30 years later or so.

-paleo : Based on neodarwinist arguments he also strongly questioned the adaptation of modern man to neolithic foods and proposed to abandon them completely and to see what happened if doing so. Again there is now clear cut support of these ideas from mainstream science.

Burger demonstrated that it is indeed possible to eat along these lines with numerous positive effects on health. When he did this it was not even obvious if homo sapiens was able to survive on a 100% raw diet !

Again he did this about 40 years ago and I consider that this is an outstanding most remarkable feat.

Burger also pointed out the importance of alliesthesy, i.e. olfactory and gustatory sensations in food intake regulation as described here :

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

Yet he went so far as to claim that there exists an « alimentary instinct » based on these sensations that is by itself capable to ensure essentially perfect nutritional balance. This is unfortunately utterly wrong and from a scientific point of view a statement like the following one taken from above link can be readily falsified.

quote from Burger

17. Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.

end of quote

In other words it is unfortunately not enough to comply with olfactory and gustatory pleasures to determine which food is best for us and ensure nutritional balance and health.
Most people who tried to do so just ate usually far too much sweet or oily fruits and not enough food of animal origin. This results in health damage after a while quite similar to the one observed in vegans.( I have recalled the main arguments against Burger's instincts on a French speaking forum recently http://paleocru.webatu.com/forum/)

This part of Burger's work about « instincts » is thus just pseudoscience and unfortunately means that he is indeed a dangerous guru. A guru recently released from jail after 12 years for pedophily, a guru who even applies his pseudoscience about "instincts" to human sexuality....

I add that by "guru" I just mean the leader of a movement or ideology who has been clearly shown to be wrong in some of his statements and often is quite aware of it but nevertheless still stubornly claims he is right and thus misleads his followers.    

[KD]

no dairy/no grain/ eats cooked food so has terrible instincts on what to eat / pushes to do things that are natural even when he does not want to resulting in unwanted muscle and strength and large appetite for unnatural quantities.




no dairy/ no grain/ eat on instinct only/ eat things that chimps would eat plus some big game meats because they are less icky than bugs. all you need is 1/500th their body weight and only eat parts that are tasty as they are the most nutritious. Leave the brain, take the canoli. You can toss the remainder because you can always get more at the store.

always obey instinct even when animals will eat both artificial and natural garbage (nutritionally speaking) because they care less about optimal nutrition and have inferior instincts than the human that can only be experienced by the true believer.

[alphagruis]

Here is what Burger tells us now (still nonsense):

It is undoubtedly for this reason that the emergent function ensuring nutritional regulation includes a large intrinsic part: the animal limits itself spontaneously with every natural product, because there are frequent situations where the natural products are available in amounts sufficient to endanger its physiological balance and temporary capacity to flee or respond to a predator’s attack. This intrinsic part of the regulation appears by various alliesthesic mechanisms (sense of smell, taste, repletion, dislike, etc): it is precisely what I call the alimentary instinct

to be compared to what he "teached" up to now to the instinctos:

Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.
 

Just mutually exclusive  

Very funny.

By the way, the guru now tries to wrap his crap about his supposed "alimentary instinct that results in perfectly balanced diet" into (unfortunately misunderstood) complex systems science language since I told him about it, rather than the old fashioned (also misunderstood) neodarwinist terms in his former version.

The trouble is that the concepts of instinct and emergence are mutually exclusive too.  

This pseudoscience triggers screaming laughters in any scientist involved in complex systems theory.

[alphagruis]

From Paleo Donk

Perhaps the thread has run its course where we can all take something from it. I think alphagruis' "falsifies instincto" comes across as too strong as you only need one minor point of contention to technically falsify one's way of eating.

Unfortunately there are many many "points" (not minor at all and some of them I dicussed formerly in French speaking forums) that also clearly falsify the instincto dogma, Paleo Donk.

The trouble with instincto is not just a matter of being theoretically flawed but first of all a matter of a dangerous practice that just does'nt work. It led almost all people who tried to apply in their diet over a prolonged period the nonsense "teached" by the guru to a lot of serious health problems quite similar to those experienced by vegans.

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

[Paleo Donk]

How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths?

It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.

I think it is ridiculous though the way it is advocated, especially in someones modern home. Necessarily it must take place outside in the wild, most likely the tropics in a tribal setting with very few tools and no permanent dwellings and so on. The fact that instinctos are glossing over the very basic premise to their own diet and not accepting this fact is depressing and very hard to take them seriously. I do appreciate their arguments as again I always learn something from someone who has a vastly different approach to nutrition or any other science for that matter.

[TylerDurden]

The Art DeVany picture is exactly what I meant when I said that photos can't be trusted. It is simply too good to be true given Art De Vany's age etc.. It's clearly well-staged, with excellent lighting, and no doubt a good deal of photoshopping involved(and perhaps the result of a few performance-enhancing substances?). Jack Lalanne is another such example. If I'd, in the end, chosen a cooked, palaeolithic diet primarily on the basis of how handsome Loren Cordain looks or how fit Art DeVany seems at first glance by comparison to most other dietary gurus, I would be dead by now. By contrast, an Instincto diet would have involved avoiding all those foods which were doing me great harm(though, perhaps, progress would have been slower if I'd consumed too many sweet fruits).

[KD]

If I'd, in the end, chosen a cooked, palaeolithic diet primarily on the basis of how handsome Loren Cordain looks or how fit Art DeVany seems at first glance by comparison to most other dietary gurus, I would be dead by now. By contrast, an Instincto diet would have involved avoiding all those foods which were doing me great harm(though, perhaps, progress would have been slower if I'd consumed too many sweet fruits).

Tyler, you are quite the conundrum. paleo man was superior in every way, therefore we should expect to follow a diet exactly like paleo mans and have 0 advantages over fellow human beings that eat all the harmful substances we rave about. We should be content with having physiques that can't actually acquire food, eat those foods anyway and say we only need small amounts to thrive and that our ratios are exactly how we would eat in a natural setting having to acquire those foods by our own means and not selected from markets.

It wasn't meant to be a comparison of which diet components are the healthiest , only to illustrate approaches to food and lifestyle in spectrum of science and instinct regardless of quality but based in similar avoiding of foods. Although by the way, its a real photo, he looks(ed) like that in videos, get over it. no matter what paleo man did, we almost necessitate all kinds of artificial situations and decisions that can both limit or improve our health. left without our resources and relying on instincts we are living optimally but in the dust even to fellow humans today that eat sub-optimally? and if you cannot accept that Art has the higher probability of securing food I honestly do not know what planet your paleo men are from where they are both stronger than the current strongest person alive, able to single handedly take down large game (and yet eating a large toes worth of meat is normal) and small like a chimp with its corresponding appetite for fruit but dislike for insects.

The point that you make exactly applies way more to ones information as obviously people arn't running to every Men's Health models advice. if GCB won't even defend against responses from fellow forum members, he is obviously claiming guru status and that he doesn't have to respond to basic polite inquiries like a normal member. you can't barge into a thread and treat it likes it 'Book tv' (CSPAN) and mention its all explained elsewhere and people are basically ignorant peasants and have nothing to contribute or worthwhile. No one should have precedence here, after all its a 'forum'. Its totally unacceptable to not respond to basic questions that have at the very least, not been explained here. [in retrospect my writing is sometimes not clear, and my post here was largely in frustration that I had like 100000 characters of genuine relevant questioning without insult in the other thread with no response]

the idea that you or I would do better or worse on a cooked 'good' diet or raw 'bad' diet or that one can thrive on instincto is irrelevant. The issue is whether following instincto yields the absolute best nutrition possible over ANY artificial choices or availability . The other issue is whether animals or primitives can even decipher between the best nutrition in the wild prior to any modern distortions using only their instinct and if artificial abundance and atrophy or skill to acquire foods comes into play. if this cannot be proven, than there should be no business of instructing others in other forums (which is the root of all this) that they shouldn't be 'measuring' their food or eating when not hungry, this is classic NH driven type crap that can in-fact be dangerous as alphagruis mentions.

[TylerDurden]

First off, I was merely making a very pertinent aside comment  about the sheer uselessness of citing photos of dietary practitioners as evidence of health, especially of the leaders in diets. That is rather obvious a point, not related to the Instincto thread, but you were the one who tried to raise that separate subject through use of photos of DeVany and Burger.
As for Instincto, while I'm not a believer in some aspects of it, I do find that wild animals(and us) have some natural instincts re raw foods.

As for the 1st paragraph, it's totally distorted  as I find that we do indeed have advantages over others who indulge in unnatural substances(we're much healthier for one - what's the point in using steroids, if, after long-term use, one gets conditions like heart-trouble etc.?) And there's evidence re IF(I don't actually recommend eating tiny amounts of foods, just feast-and-famine). Ah well, time to check in , have to go.

[KD]

yep, "he's on steroids", what a complete insulting joke. obviously you are pretty impressed with his pic if you are making such ridiculous claims. the guy is in his 70's (although younger in that photo) its totally pertinent in this case and others. while you can theoretically photoshop muscles, no manner of makeup short of prosthetics will re-create them in videos. As an experiment you can always try to photoshop yourself being able to outmatch a 70 year old and see if we buy it. Everyone knows to view photos with some skepticism but as documents that back up real life observations or thought videos they are valid signs of certain aspects of health and fitness.

my comment isn't distorted at all, this is the kind of claims that you make. you say paleo man was way stronger than any contemporary exercise can recreate and yet you say elsewhere that raw foods cause weight-loss and people can't get large levels of strength and size without taking steroids and cant compete in the olympics without steroids.  I could easily pick cooked natives and others that are capable of running down animals as a similar argument but they wouldn't be intentional modifying their diet for the best results. Pure physique obviously doesn't mean any person is healthier or unhealthier. We can agree that cooking is probably not the healthiest which is why De Vany should not have any advantages over any proposed raw system here. He is not on steroids and the way you transition from paleo cooked foods to steroids is abominable and embarrassing.

of course eventually there will be a response suggesting he was just referring to the other average steroid taking westerns that have strength and fitness eating crap and then one can just point to here:
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/infonews-items/more-evidence-that-palaeo-tribespeople-were-strongerfitter-than-us/msg37777/#msg37777

Once again, there might be tons of beneficial points raised in instinco or beneficial practices for the initiated, the issue is whether its superior over other methodologies in producing the best results and longevity is only one component of measure. Since you repeatedly say there are only bits and pieces you believe have value, obviously you do not believe its a proper methodology in total for deciding what is best for each individual to eat. I too believe we have instincts of value.

[alphagruis]

How do we know its dangerous? Who are the ones that got in the most trouble from following its paths?

It surely is far healthier than fruitarianism and veganism and most likely SAD, so what is it dangerous in respect to? In this respect it could be extremely healthy and certainly eventually lead to an even healthier diet once more research is conducted.

It's dangerous for a large number of people who believe in and apply Burger's stance: roughly, eat only what you're "best attracted to by smell" and eat as long as taste is pleasurable until "instinctive stop". I attended during many years the gatherings of instinctos here in France and in particular those instinctos living in the château de Montramé and from Orkos , which had access all year round to the best instincto food ever available and were according to Burger himself in ideal conditions to test his ideas. Most of even these people were emaciated, did'nt look healthy, had to take B12 or other vitamin and complement shots etc. In particular I have in mind the health damages to the young man who initially enthousiastically "teached instincto" to newbies (like me by then) during several years once Burger was in jail .

Among those people who got in the most trouble from following instincto path were precisely those who had access to a tremendous amount and variety of fruit, contrary to Burger's views.        

The reasons for these health damages are simple: instincto stance leads most people to systematically overeat sweet and oily fruits and consequently for many of them not eat enough food of animal origin, in particular, fat, eggs, liver or other organ, fish or shellfish etc rich in vitamins A, K, D etc. I know of many of them who just never or only rarely ate such foods just because they were not "instinctively" attracted to. In contrast the same people ingested tremendous amounts of avocados ( 5 to 10 per meal or 20 bananas  etc.) "No problem" they were told by instincto non sense "your organism needs so much"

A few people such as Iguana or myself are exceptions because we happened to be capable to routinely eat eggs or crabs etc.

It is also true that instinctos usually do a bit better than vegans or fruitarianists. It's Raw Paleo and most instinctos eat at least some meat, but often too much muscle and not enough fat from animals i.e. not enough A,D,K vitamins, for instance.

I also do not deny that much can be learned from instincto experiment, Paleo Donk. I've learned much from Burger's work but I'd also to come to the conclusion that that part of it's stance dealing with instincts is pure nonsense.    

[alphagruis]

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

In this respect it would be of great interest to find out how many members of this forum actually claim to be instinctos.

The number of them is certainly either equal or greater than 2  

I'm inclined to believe that the former option might well be true

At any rate it would be a surprise to me if there were more than 1% of them.

If there is anyone else in this forum who claims to be instincto, please tell us.

This would give us a very good idea as to what extent instinctos indeed "thrive" and Burger's stance about instincts actually works.  

[alphagruis]

In April 2007 I already wrote a letter summarizing my criticisms of instincto stance to Burger in jail.

My letter just met with no response. As KD experienced in his posts, Burger usually either feigns to not understand a criticism or he distorts it or merely ignores what questions the instincto dogma. Anyway if needed he arrogantly explains away everything that is at odds with his nonsense.

As far as I know my criticisms made him fly in a terrible rage and this is still obvious now in his recent posts.

 In a similar rage flew apparently Iguana 3 days ago when he initially posted the quote below to blame me (before he finally got "a better idea" and merely used censorship to delete those of my posts he did'nt like).     

Thank you Francois, I am glad that you perceive my critiques as constructive and I hope that GCB will perceive them as such. But even if his reaction were to be more irritated I will understand very well and that would not remove in any way the respect, admiration and thankfulness I have for him. I do not forget he provided me the means of getting definitively rid of my damned recurrent renal calculus in a few months thanks to his instinctotherapy, whereas the ignoramus full of themselves, pretentious and narrow-minded of the medical institution had been taking me for a ride during 10 years.

which is my reply to his comments about my letter to Burger in jail in April 2007.

Maybe this is going to sound very surprising, but I still think so today and would make little change in my phrasing. Burger with his instincto made me discover Raw Paleo and this saved my life indeed.

Yet I also discovered the flaws of that part of instincto dealing instincts and the dangers associated with them. I have to sharply criticize and debunk that because it's unfortunately dangerous for a majority of those people tempted to follow instincto path.

And finally it's only very recently, since he's been released from jail, that somewhat confronted to him, I learned a lot about Burger as a perverse manipulator and it made me very sad.

                                               

[goodsamaritan]

Among those people who got in the most trouble from following instincto path were precisely those who had access to a tremendous amount and variety of fruit, contrary to Burger's views.        

The reasons for these health damages are simple: instincto stance leads most people to systematically overeat sweet and oily fruits and consequently for many of them not eat enough food of animal origin, in particular, fat, eggs, liver or other organ, fish or shellfish etc rich in vitamins A, K, D etc. I know of many of them who just never or only rarely ate such foods just because they were not "instinctively" attracted to. :) In contrast the same people ingested tremendous amounts of avocados ( 5 to 10 per meal or 20 bananas  etc.) "No problem" they were told by instincto non sense "your organism needs so much" ;D

I must be lucky my "instincts" and "logic" work together somehow.  I'm no instincto but I do listen to my instincts and try to rationalize what my body is telling me.  Our being detached from pure autonomic instinct is what makes us human.  

I did my raw vegan time and found this a horrible way to live.  Vegan fare does not make me happy.

I did my fruitarian time, lasted only 2 months, with probably the 2nd best fruits in the world... (maybe Thailand is best because they have a lot of durian)... it was a yummy time, but malnourishing.

But for some reason, I was never able to eat in the quantities you describe: 5 to 10 avocados? 20 bananas?  Outrageous.  I could never stuff myself that much.  Maybe this is why I easily became malnourished.

Maybe its because I'm small? 165 cm, Filipino.  Small gut capacity?

My instinct told me after 2 months of fruitarian, this was not working... I was too cold and too thin.... Then I stumbled onto Wai Diet, then boom... intake of raw fish and raw eggs made me alive.

Seafood and eggs were getting to be boring... I found Aajonus of Primal Diet and was encouraged to try raw land animals and raw milk.  Raw milk tasted great but I could never digest it... lactose intolerant.  I tasted the different land animals and like beef and horse best.

All you guys here in raw paleo forum were wonderful in guiding me to discover and migrate to a high fat low carb diet.

All my diet migrations so far are logic and rational first, then guided instincts follow.

There was a time I experimented with cooked meat, and at times I would have a bit of cooked meat, but somehow my instinct tells me I feel a lot better on raw meat than cooked meat.

What I'm saying is, I listen to my instincts, but it is my rational mind that makes the final decisions and after feedback, adjustments are made.

You need to lighten up a bit, Gerard.  There is no "one" guru that will fit all your needs.

My old teacher Barefoot Herbalist MH pushed fruitarianism but I found out after 2 months that fruitarianism was not for me.  But I still appreciate his teachings and keep them as reference.

I read Aajonus Vonderplanitz, he's a good healer, and for the people who can digest dairy, it works.  But I still appreciate his teachings.

My friend Vander Gaditano and who I consider my master teacher in crisis healing is not a raw foodist.  He pulls people out of stage 4 cancers routinely.  He uses whatever is needed for the patient.  Temporary raw vegan, temporary raw meat carnivore, a combination, raw livers, etc. I understand that crisis medicine is different.  But I appreciate his teachings still.

I appreciate Instincto teachings and I am just so thankful the man himself, the original, Burger is here with us!

[alphagruis]

GS,

Thanks for your post.

I quite agree with everything you said.

If one calls "instincts" (a dodgy concept actually) what strongly urges us to act in a some way not subject to reasoning, unconsciously, I agree heartidly with this for instance:

I must be lucky my "instincts" and "logic" work together somehow.  I'm no instincto but I do listen to my instincts and try to rationalize what my body is telling me.  Our being detached from pure autonomic instinct is what makes us human.  

What I'm saying is, I listen to my instincts, but it is my rational mind that makes the final decisions and after feedback, adjustments are made.

I also listen to my instincts and we all can't actually help to do so to some extent. But I also claim that we unfortunately have to control carefully with our mind and reasoning the relevant urges to not be fooled by them.  

What's wrong with Burger is that he, in contrast, erroneously claims that as to food intake and regulation it is enough to comply to the olfactory and sensory sensations or alimentary instinct, provided that the food is raw and paleo.

Interesting idea a priori in the 1960's but now amply tested and proven wrong and dangerous by experiment.

Unfortunately his stance about instincts is very attractive and thus dangerous because we all would like to just comply with them...

Actually we have to learn and reinvent generation after generation how to eat and stay healthy in a rapidly changing environment whether we like it or not.
 

You need to lighten up a bit, Gerard.  There is no "one" guru that will fit all your needs.

Yes, neither do I believe that any of us in general is right in every of his beliefs. What makes me a bit rude with Burger is not that he appears now to be wrong in some of his statements but that he stubornly continues to "teach" the relevant nonsense in spite of the evidence at hand.

But, well, I can tell you, Edwin, debunking the instinctive part of instincto is not my obsession. The experimental evidence at hand has done it since long.    

I appreciate Instincto teachings and I am just so thankful the man himself, the original, Burger is here with us!

I appreciated them too and agree completely with a good deal of Burger's most remarkable work.  

[KD]

the instincto teachings as I understand them as have been reiterated here by definition require you to reject all other methodologies in order for them to work properly and that choosing nutrition based on instinctico philosophy will yield better results than any forcing or denial of foods and rejecting the pleasure instinct over methodologies or experiences. If it does not yield the best results it can hardley be call a supreme technology no matter how intrinsically located in our development nevermind for current food supply, degeneration and healing needs.

That being understood, while one can take aspects of instincto into their current diet, one cannot follow multiple methodologies like paleo diet or primal diet and call that instincto and doing so defies its value as a superior nutritional system to all others.

[alphagruis]

the instincto teachings as I understand them as have been reiterated here by definition require you to reject all other methodologies in order for them to work properly and that choosing nutrition based on instinctico philosophy will yield better results than any forcing or denial of foods and rejecting the pleasure instinct over methodologies or experiences. If it does not yield the best results it can hardley be call a supreme technology no matter how intrinsically located in our development nevermind for current food supply, degeneration and healing needs.

That being understood, while one can take aspects of instincto into their current diet, one cannot follow multiple methodologies like paleo diet or primal diet and call that instincto and doing so defies its value as a superior nutritional system to all others.

I agree. There is nothing like a unique superior nutritional system, anyway. There are just many ways (which are a matter of culture and environment and by no means of instincts) to eat and live and stay healthy as proven by various human ancestor groups that lived in very different environments worldwide on very different diets. Instincto as contended by Burger is not one of them for many reasons, the first being that it just never seriously worked and now 40 years after its invention the instincto movement reduces to a ridiculous handfull of poeple who closely gravitate around the guru. I bet that the movement will disappear and die out completely with him.

An example of another reason for instincto failure is that its stance about instincts puts quite unnecessary constraints on what and how to eat. For instance it contends the idea that tropical fruits are best for us because of our origin from a kind of supposed tropical paradise. The whole instincto stance actually belongs to the Noble Savage ideology and according to Burger the optimal proportion of fruit in our diet should be close to the one of chimps.

The fact is that neither tropical fruits nor even any fruit at all is indispensable to be in vibrant health.    
 

[TylerDurden]

yep, "he's on steroids", what a complete insulting joke. obviously you are pretty impressed with his pic if you are making such ridiculous claims.

That's just very gullible an opinion. It's simply that I've seen so many gurus(diets or exercise) with similiarly good-looking well-staged photos and it is extraordinarily unlikely  that they are all as super-healthy as their photoshopped photos appear to be, given that they're doing 100s of different routines re diet etc. To believe that DeVany is telling the truth would mean having to believe that all other gurus looking as good as him re photos  were also telling the truth which is just foolish.

the guy is in his 70's (although younger in that photo) its totally pertinent in this case and others. while you can theoretically photoshop muscles, no manner of makeup short of prosthetics will re-create them in videos. As an experiment you can always try to photoshop yourself being able to outmatch a 70 year old and see if we buy it. Everyone knows to view photos with some skepticism but as documents that back up real life observations or thought videos they are valid signs of certain aspects of health and fitness.

First of all, muscles can be easily built up using steroids and other substances. They don't require photoshopping.Photoshopping is now so often used to give good artificial lighting or to erase "unpleasant little details" such as wrinkles etc., that one cannot  realistically trust photos any more of gurus.

my comment isn't distorted at all, this is the kind of claims that you make. you say paleo man was way stronger than any contemporary exercise can recreate and yet you say elsewhere that raw foods cause weight-loss and people can't get large levels of strength and size without taking steroids and cant compete in the olympics without steroids.  I could easily pick cooked natives and others that are capable of running down animals as a similar argument but they wouldn't be intentional modifying their diet for the best results. Pure physique obviously doesn't mean any person is healthier or unhealthier. We can agree that cooking is probably not the healthiest which is why De Vany should not have any advantages over any proposed raw system here. He is not on steroids and the way you transition from paleo cooked foods to steroids is abominable and embarrassing.

It was indeed distorted as you are making (deliberately?)false conclusions about my views from quite separate things I said. As for steroids, there is no guarantee whatsoever that a particular guru isn't on steroids(too many athletes  etc. have lied re this and some have eventually been found out, for someone's mere "word" to be trusted. For one thing, most people as they get really old on cooked diets, tend to end up with atherosclerosis etc., and find exercise to be a problem so that artificial substances like steroids help ease matters.

First off, my comment re raw(palaeo) foods usually causing weight-loss is perfectly true since most people on SAD diets are hideously obese, and find they lose weight on raw foods. Those who are underweight despite being on RVAF diets usually have to go in for raw dairy)which causes weight-gain) or overeat ridiculous amounts, judging from past remarks. Now, because of modern living(indeed epigenetics shows us that even a grandparent's diet can make a grandchild's health worse, so obviously some people will be underweight even on RVAF diets due to past lifestyles , heath-problems etc. and need to overeat. But that doesn't change the fact that most people on RVAF diets do normalise their weight over time(that is, they start out commonly overweight on SAD diets and gain normal weight on RVAF diets). And I certainly wasn't suggesting that palaeo tribesmen were underweight, you claimed that.

As for current sporting events, it is a fact that most professional athletes use steroids and other substances as, despite poor scientific tests(re not adequately keeping up with cheating technology) athletes are being constantly found out via random tests. Partly, this is because of the sheer competition involved but also one has to bear in mind that such athletes routinely live on unhealthy diets such as SAD(even DeVany is on cooked-palaeo) so that it is necessary for them to get extra boosts. I don't think I  stated that they had no choice but to to use steroids in all cases in order to compete with each other(just with bodybuilding contests), I did state that most modern athletes do use steroids as a routine, in  order to win via use of artificial methods.

As for the palaeo claims, there have been several scientific studies showing that palaeo peoples were either at least as good as or better than modern athletes, so that is beyond doubt. What is disturbing is that the comparisons are between average people in the Palaeolithic(not necessarily the best-performing palaeos) and modern athletes, who are the elite among us.

Once again, there might be tons of beneficial points raised in instinco or beneficial practices for the initiated, the issue is whether its superior over other methodologies in producing the best results and longevity is only one component of measure. Since you repeatedly say there are only bits and pieces you believe have value, obviously you do not believe its a proper methodology in total for deciding what is best for each individual to eat. I too believe we have instincts of value.

It is physically impossible for 1 guru or 1 diet to be 100% perfect in all respects that's obvious. That said, a great deal of what is involved in Instincto has been proven  right  whereas other diets, such as the Primal Diet, have been proven wrong in many cases, re raw dairy etc.. For example, Instincto is right on the button re forbidding non-raw and non-palaeo foods, and my own experience does show that instincts do play a part. I suppose one has to distinguish between instincts and unnatural cravings, a difficult thing to do.

Damn, I should never get involved with an argument just prior to going abroad. Well, I shall just have to wait until August, I suppose, if this goes on and on! My leisure time takes precedence.

[Jacques]

Hello all,

I'm a new guy on this forum. I know and am interested in Instinctotherapy and Palaeolithic diet since my stay in Montramé in the early '90s. Since English is not my mother tongue, I will ask you guys for some leeway.

I’ve been reading alphagruis (Gérard on Paléo Cru forum) for the last week, and came to the conclusion that for some (still) obscure reasons, he is denying to humans (and animals in general) an attribute that even motor vehicles have: the use of some kind of carburetor. Applied to humans and animals, he is simply denying the existence of instinct.

Just read the following description of a carburetor’s job and you will start to have an idea of the utility of a feeding instinct, and why it is important to rediscover it:

Under all engine operating conditions, the carburetor must:

•   Measure the airflow of the engine
•   Deliver the correct amount of fuel to keep the fuel/air mixture in the proper range (adjusting for factors such as temperature)
•   Mix the two finely and evenly

This job would be simple if air and gasoline (petrol) were ideal fluids; in practice, however, their deviations from ideal behavior due to viscosity, fluid drag, inertia, etc. require a great deal of complexity to compensate for exceptionally high or low engine speeds. A carburetor must provide the proper fuel/air mixture across a wide range of ambient temperatures, atmospheric pressures, engine speeds and loads, and centrifugal forces:

•   Cold start
•   Hot start
•   Idling or slow-running
•   Acceleration
•   High speed / high power at full throttle
•   Cruising at part throttle (light load)

In addition, modern carburetors are required to do this while maintaining low rates of exhaust emissions.To function correctly under all these conditions, most carburetors contain a complex set of mechanisms to support several different operating modes, called circuits.

Now, apply this to animals and humans and you will see that Burger’s claim may not be that stupid after all.

I will come back with my own experience in future posts.

[alphagruis]

Jacques,

Just read my ansver to GS's post above and become aware of that yours is just ridiculous

As to your future posts just remember from PaleoCru, you're already on my black list. No further debate with you.

J'ai l'impression de lire du GCB tout cru. Aussi tordu, aussi hypocrite et aussi fourbe.

On ignore allègrement tous les arguments et critiques de fond qui gênent, fait semblant de ne pas comprendre, fait dire à l'interlocuteur ce qu'il ne dit pas pour le discréditer ou blâmer etc etc. Bref on noie le poisson et blablate en tournant autour du pot pour embrouiller le chaland.

Je vous rajoute donc immédiatement à la liste des gens avec qui ma discussion s'est déjà arrêtée pour les mêmes raisons.   
 

[KD]

As for current sporting events, it is a fact that most professional athletes use steroids and other substances as, despite poor scientific tests(re not adequately keeping up with cheating technology) athletes are being constantly found out via random tests. Partly, this is because of the sheer competition involved but also one has to bear in mind that such athletes routinely live on unhealthy diets such as SAD(even DeVany is on cooked-palaeo) so that it is necessary for them to get extra boosts. I don't think I  stated that they had no choice but to to use steroids in all cases in order to compete with each other(just with bodybuilding contests), I did state that most modern athletes do use steroids as a routine, in  order to win via use of artificial methods.

ok I'm distorting your views yet you dedicated paragraphs to saying the same things basically that people cannot rivial raw palelos without use of artificial drugs and if they do that they are lieing? This was the worst post thus far and well illustrates my point.

not only can you not accept being wrong on this, you can't accept anyone has positive results cooking foods, using dairy etc...and have to basically come up with tons of inplausible reasons why everyone should fail dong things you don't agree with. Because he cooks he must have all these health problems and therefore he is not to be trusted even though there is a long list of people who have met the guy in person and seen in action. You have tremendous logic issues going on here and elsewhere which are quite visible in that link , the 'how big?' thread, and here without any writing I could supply to distort it. you have mentioned average palos had more strength than any possible training we can come up with in modern times. and that modern training provides poor functional strength. You are wrong and the experts you posted say you are wrong. Anyone can read the comment about the pygmy in reference to being 120 lbs and see a straw reaching contest.

as I already mentioned the point of showing the juxtaposition was not that one person was healthier based on how they looked (it included information as well), it was that a range of actual practiced habits can yield better results than natural theories even if they seem more sound scientifically and anthropologically. Of course 9/10 we are deciding this science and anthropology as amateurs on this forum, so some guys like deVany might manage to get their versions to work even better despite our best arguments and 'proof' - no cheating required. It wasn't a comparison of whos internal organs are healthier due to cooking or processing, only how people held up at higher ages. Which was totally acceptable in other threads comparison to other 'veg' gurus...

your double standard is always using conveniences or confusion against things that present conflicting successful arguments. If you had a photo of a caveman lifting a car like our current strongmen you would probably plaster it all over the site. Just like that article that blew up in terms of proving modern training poor when in reality it was all the genetic and nutritional things we can all agree on. When it doubt throw some completely unprovable monkey wrench into any well argued point.

the idea that all photos arn't reliable as information is just nonsense, this coming from someone who actually said things like "well I've heard reports on (from RPD message boards? from uncle charlie?) of instintos looking healthier than primal dieters at American potlucks" and actually mean it seriously as an argument.

what I said about instincto is correct and what you say and others say about gurus not being 100% is incorrect and misplaced. The very acceptance of it being a valid theory this means there are no beneficial therapies, and no benefit in learning form others what works. Just because you and I like many people here see merit in many aspects does not contradict this and you remain incorrect about what constitutes 'proof' seeing since you frequently make statements regarding a number of 'disputed' issues as if they can't even be contested..

[Jacques]

In short, alphagruis is telling us: If theory contradicts facts, stick to theory!

[alphagruis]

The fact is that neither tropical fruits nor even any fruit at all is indispensable to be in vibrant health.    
 

In this respect it's important to notice that instincto is also environmentally unsustainable in temperate countries. It's just been made possible because cheap oil was temporarily available during the past 50 years.

Normally humans have and had to eat essentially what's available locally and this resulted in a great variety of (nevertheless healthy) diets. And this is undoubtedly going to be so in future again. These environmental constraints are completely overlooked presently because cheap energy relaxed them temporarily.

http://tobyspeople.com/anthropik/2005/07/thesis-4-human-population-is-a-function-of-food-supply/index.html