Instinctos take on evolution without food choices?

[Susan]

No, I tend to ignore it "instinctively"  because eating the dates is often still very pleasant. I'm sure that most  rawfooders don't even perceive such faint stop signals unless they concentrate on their perceptions while eating.

Many rawfooders ignore faint instinctive stops like you do with the argument it's still pleasant to continue. I believe this is due to the wrong molding of our instincts during childhood: In modern civilisation sweets serve as a compensation for physical contact. This wrong molding still exists even when your eating raw. It's a trap where many rawfooders remain caught. The only way to free oneself is to obey this faint stops.

[goodsamaritan]

Ah dates.  The first time I tasted true dates a few months ago, I got hooked.
Then I bought 4 bag fulls.
I ate until I got sick of it.

I clearly don't want to buy any more dates in a long while.

[RomanK]

100% agree with Susan, my case...

[Hanna]

I believe this is due to the wrong molding of our instincts during childhood

No, it´s due to the fact that instincts (as defined by gcb) don´t really work with dates and most other fruits. A true instinctive stop would be a taste change from pleasant to unpleasant.

Some things are just as simple as they seem to be.

[Susan]

No, it's due to the fact that instincts (as defined by gcb) don't really work with dates and most other fruits. A true instinctive stop would be a taste change from pleasant to unpleasant.

Some things are just as simple as they seem to be.

Define the term "true instinctive stop".

Do you only have noticed one form of instinctive stop namely the change from pleasant to unpleasant?

There are lot of different forms of instinctive stops beginning with an itching in the oral cavity and ending with an irritation of the throat. More forms here: Die instinktive Sperre

Dates and other cultivated fruits and vegetables normally have only faint stops but they have like you have mentioned. Mother nature can be very tender and smooth. In the case of ignoring faint stops she can be hard and cruel:

Yes, of course, my experience shows that ignoring the burning has - sooner or later - negative effects on my health.

[GCB]

No, it´s due to the fact that instincts (as defined by gcb) don´t really work with dates and most other fruits. A true instinctive stop would be a taste change from pleasant to unpleasant.
Some things are just as simple as they seem to be.

Things are perhaps not so simple.

These large rations of dates (or other dried or sweet stuffs) can be explained by several factors:

1. Dates can be processed, for example heated to be dried because fresh dates have strong tendency to rot. Dried fruit denatured by heat are no longer recognized by the normal alliesthesic mechanisms, so taste stop signs are virtually non-existent. And even in case the dates haven’t been heated, if we ignore the gut signals (feeling of satisfaction, fullness, etc..), which often require rehabilitation, we consumes immoderate quantities.

2. There may be at a lack of awareness of our own perceptions of taste. In this case, as Susan said, we must learn to recognize  the weak  (faint) signals that are still visible.

3. But it is also quite possible that large quantities of dates or other sweet products are useful and even necessary in the beginning to unlock metabolic situations. A seemingly unreasonable amount may simply reflect a major need of the body, for example to reconstruct what a massive consumption of rice or other processed starches could have caused. When you need to renovate a house, you must also bring exceptional amounts of brick or cement, much more than in everyday life: it is not a sign of madness of the workers, but rather the symptom of intensive work. Even the discomfort following the digestion may be the signal for a big job of the immune system (eg feelings of disgust, allergic reactions, etc..) and it’s important not to conclude too quickly to a nuisance.

Given the confusion sown by the culinary practices in the functioning of the  metabolism and immune system, all three phenomena can even be superimposed. To see clearly in each case there’s only the long-term observation. The body must move towards a better general health, welfare and endurance must recover, the disease symptoms disappear, etc.. It may take a long time, because we do not rebuilt a body in a jiffy.

For example, in the early years, I could sometimes consume kilos of honey or dates with nothing to stop me at a "normal" amount. But this did not happen all the time, proof that my body knew exactly to open or close its intake valves. But over time, these "therapeutic diets" became more and more rare. Now the first bites of the same products are often as delectable as before, but stopping occurs in inescapably after very small amounts (a few bites, of course not every day).

This suggests that these mechanisms are perfectly regulated and are in no way uncontrolled skidding. Beginners panic, because their considerations are based on dietary standards; but these are meaningless, since they are only average values thus inherently incapable of responding to individual cases. Needs vary greatly from an individual to the other and from a moment to another, especially  after the  havoc  wrought by  years  of denatured nutrition.

So beware: do not conclude too quickly, the body has its reasons which reason knows nothing about...

Best regards
GCB

[Hanna]

A seemingly unreasonable amount may simply reflect a major need of the body, for example to reconstruct what a massive consumption of rice or other processed starches could have caused.

This is a part of your theory I have never understood. Doesn´t the body consist mainly of water, protein and fat? So if there are any tissues the body would like to replace - why should it be necessary to eat massive amounts of carbs to do the job?

[kurite]

I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?

[GCB]

This is a part of your theory I have never understood. Doesn´t the body consist mainly of water, protein and fat? So if there are any tissues the body would like to replace - why should it be necessary to eat massive amounts of carbs to do the job?

Where did you get such ideas? Carbohydrates play an equally essential role than proteins and lipids in the constitution of our cells. The quantity is not everything.

Proteins assure a polarization of the membrane, but this role is primarily devoted to carbohydrates. They form varied and complex structures at the surface of the membrane. Carbohydrates are attached to the membrane in two ways: to the surface through intramembrane proteins (glycoproteins) or to lipids of the membrane (glycolipids).
The carbohydrates have several roles:

     * Recognition: the carbohydrate units are highly antigenic (eg blood groups).
     * Participation in the local environment, carbohydrates are highly polar molecules.
     * Strengthening the membrane.

In animals, carbohydrates form a soft felting called glycocalyx. Membranes are fluid interface structures between the extracellular and intracellular medium that a cell can adjust in very specific ways to meet its needs. It plays both a role in communication with the outside world and a role of sorting molecules of interest to the cell. These properties make the membrane one of the most important organelles of the cell, the only one any cell can’t do without, even temporarily.

Thus, glucides play a major role at both the cellular level and at the immune system level.

Moreover, stocks of fats that the body produces in part from carbohydrates, and glycogen itself (long chains of starch as a store of carbohydrates in the liver and muscles) may also be affected by the contribution of abnormal carbohydrate molecules. An excellent example is provided by 2-deoxyglucose molecule in all points similar to glucose, apart from the lack of a single atom of oxygen, which accumulates in neurons and blocks the normal metabolism of glucose. The same fate may await all kinds of carbohydrate molecules denatured by cooking.

It is therefore not surprising that the intake of denatured carbohydrates, alone or stuck to other molecular debris (non-original glucoproteins, glucolipides etc.), disorganizes the functioning of the body and that replacing them is an early task of "reconstruction" or "normalization" ever since the natural diet allows it. That is, at least the assumption that seems best to stick with the facts.

[GCB]

I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?

If I trust the experience, the body is not mad: olfactogustative perception is organized in a way to make pleasant the flavor of helpful foods. I've never seen a case that puts this basic law in default, provided that the food is presented as natural (no processing changing its flavor neither seasoning, mixtures, preparations of any kind nor artificial selection etc...).

We should however be wary of the reciprocal: a tasteless natural food can be toxic, especially when the sense of smell or taste is not normally developed (as is the case in the culinary contex).

We know now that the flavors experienced by the child at an early growth stage influences the number of sensory receptors in the olfactory bulb. With the smells far away from those of natural products to which we have been confronted, we can understand that our olfactogustative operation is not as sensitive and reliable as it should be. There is also the issue of properly reading nutrition-related sensations, which may be biased due to a lack of learning, or to a learning itself biased.

The very purpose of instinctotherapy is to use what we have left of a normal instinctive operation to find anyway an optimal nutritional balance.

If you want a more precise answer, tell me what are the foods with which you have experienced changes in flavor such as the new flavors were still enjoyable and the precise circumstancies in which this happened.

Regards
GCB

[Susan]

I have definately experienced a taste change in many raw foods but at the same time I still like the new taste? Should I stop eating when the change occurs?

The answer should be "yes" or "no" but sometimes things are not so simple like GCB remarked.

If you eat wild fruits (like safus or raspberries) you will notice that every single fruit tastes different. Eating such fruits a change of taste doesn't mean that you have to finish your meal. I stop eating if together with a change of taste my mind starts to roam. Other subjects than eating come into my mind, the pleasure of eating decreases.

[Hanna]

Gcb,
Thank you for your answer.

Even the discomfort following the digestion may be the signal for a big job of the immune system (eg feelings of disgust, allergic reactions, etc..)

Why do you think that allergic reactions can be a sign fo detoxification?

What do you think are the culinary roots of allergies? How could allergies against pollen, pet hair or house dust mite be caused by abnormal molecules?

[GCB]

Gcb,
Thank you for your answer.
Why do you think that allergic reactions can be a sign fo detoxification?
What do you think are the culinary roots of allergies?
How could allergies against pollen, pet hair or house dust mite be caused by abnormal molecules?

So, what in itself is an "allergic" reaction? It is a reaction of the immune system that disturbs the host, because it is stronger than normally, resulting in unpleasant symptoms.

There is no clear boundary between so-called normal immune response against foreign molecules (called antigens to express the fact that they trigger antibody formation) and an allergic reaction, except that the latter seems to escape the normal regulatory mechanisms (which can be recognized in the silence of the organs).

Why can there be a relationship between NCS (New Chemical Species derived from processing that accumulate in the body) and common antigens (all molecules from the environment recognized as foreign by the organism: hair, dust mites etc.)?

For a very simple reason that we usually don’t think about enough: there are multitudes of "cross-reactions" between different antigens. "Cross reaction" means that two different antigens trigger the same reaction of the immune system because of similar molecular surfaces.

Principally, the immune system identifies each antigen and implements a specific reaction. Each antibody produced has molecular reliefs which correspond exactly to the reliefs of the antigenic molecule to which it is intended. There is little risk of confusion. But with the billions of possibilities, some reliefs still lead to confusion, calleds "cross reactions" by immunologist.

It is thus understandable that a reaction triggered by a new antigen may be of unexpected importance if a similar antigen has already been introduced into the body and has "sensitized" the immune system. Therefore, food antigens (incompletely degraded molecules crossing the intestinal barrier) can sensitize the immune system, so that other antigens (dust, pollen, etc.) will trigger apparently inexplicable cross-reactions. This will ultimately lead to an allergy to foreign antigens, without suspecting that the reaction itself is induced by food antigens.

The converse suggests that by stopping the penetration of these food antigens (switching to a natural diet which doesn't contain the same non-degradable molecules), the immune response to environmental antigens will decrease rapidly. This is what can commonly be observed after transition to instincto.

However, there are some cases where these reactions occur with delay. The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens, such as the effect of repetitive consumption of dairy products. Then it may happen years later that a new antigen, from an unusual food, from an insect bite, from a bacterium, will cause the awakening of the immune system (immunologists refer to it as "breakdown of tolerance"). This apparently inexplicable reaction thus may seem disproportionate.

Reactions of this type are called "detoxination reaction" in instincto slang. Note that antigens capable of "awakening" the immune system, can derive from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, or from another organism), but foods are most often sources of antigens that provoke a breakdown of tolerance.

This concept is compatible with conventional notions of immunology, except that immunologists have not yet realized the importance of food antigens since they are unable to show their effect in the too repetitive context of a traditionally cooked diet.

Regards
GCB

[Hanna]

If people suffering from allergies are sensitized towards NCS, their immune system does not tolerate these NCS.  So you think that at least people suffering from allergies are NOT in a state of tolerance towards NCS? What about people who do not suffer from allergies? Are they not sensitized against NCS and instead do tolerate them? I thought you claimed that all cooking people are more or less in a state of tolerance towards NCS. At least some other instinctos did claim that. What about people suffering from autoimmune diseases? Didn´t you claim that autoimmune reactions destroy NCS in the body?

If I were not in a state of tolerance towards NCS even when I still ate cooked food, why did I begin to react strongly to cooked food only after i had eaten strictly raw food for some time? And why did I react strongly to cooked food, although my allergies to pollen, pet hairs, house dust  mites and insect poison (as well as my autoimmune diseases) had almost or completely disappeared? And why did my reactions to cooked food even became stronger the longer I ate rawfood?

The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens

Which antigens besides dairy antigens? Why should the organism tolerate some food antigens, but not tolerate other food antigens?

Best regards,
Hanna

[GCB]

If people suffering from allergies are sensitized towards NCS, their immune system does not tolerate these NCS.  So you think that at least people suffering from allergies are NOT in a state of tolerance towards NCS? What about people who do not suffer from allergies? Are they not sensitized against NCS and instead do tolerate them? I thought you claimed that all cooking people are more or less in a state of tolerance towards NCS. At least some other instinctos did claim that. What about people suffering from autoimmune diseases? Didn´t you claim that autoimmune reactions destroy NCS in the body?

When you say " Tolerance towards NCS ", remember that there is a very large number of NCS. Tolerances, such as immune responses themselves, are specific. That is to say that one type of molecules will be tolerated while closely alike molecules will not. A tolerance develops under the effect of repeated administration of an antigen, usually after a period of sensitization with increasing reactions: it is as if the body understood that it becomes uselesss to fight against the repeatedly incoming antigen and waives its normal vigilance.

This is clearly the case with antigens from cow's milk: the baby often begins to react to the first bottle by diarrhea, vomiting, fever, buttons, etc.. Then the symptoms disappear and everyone is happy. It is however only a grace period, and it suffices to discontinue dairy products long enough, or to absorb similar cattle antigens to trigger an "allergic" reaction - so called because the reason for its importance remains unknown.

All signs show that the body gets rid itself of foreign molecules, so I think better to speak of detoxination reaction rather than allergic reaction. Especially since a correct practice of instincto keeps these reactions within perfectly endurable limits (whereas allergic presupposes unbearable disorders).
It seems that a prolonged practice of a denatured nutrition induces multiple tolerances, for a large part of the antigenic NCS  due to traditional foods (milk, wheat, AGEs, etc..). It seems that cooking produces a lot of non-original antigens; for example roasted peanuts are 90 times more allergens than raw peanuts.

If this model is correct, the body of an individual contains a series of different molecules that may have accumulated in favor of specific tolerances, all of which will, following particular stimulations, give rise to reactions of detoxination. One of the challenges of instincto is precisely to ensure proper management of these reactions, so that they do not cause any damage due to an uncontrolled runaway.

I emphasize that these notions are not currently recognized by traditional medicine. The result is that many reactions remain unexplained, and it is very convenient to stick them the label of allergy. Allergies get traditionally explained by sensitization to an antigen (eg pollen, cat hair ...) repeatedly put in contact with the body. But this explanation does not explain everything, especially the fact that the practice of instincto very systematically allows to eliminate allergic symptoms (although it triggers the appearance of some in the beginning, especially if the practice does not comply with the rules having taken place along the experiments).

If I were not in a state of tolerance towards NCS even when I still ate cooked food, why did I begin to react strongly to cooked food only after i had eaten strictly raw food for some time? And why did I react strongly to cooked food, although my allergies to pollen, pet hairs, house dust  mites and insect poison (as well as my autoimmune diseases) had almost or completely disappeared? And why did my reactions to cooked food even became stronger the longer I ate rawfood?

The answers are straightforward, from what has been said above. If the tolerance ending occurred after discontinuation of traditional foods became excessively strong for you, it's probably because you didn't practice the instincto in the rules. It takes very little for the symptoms that normally would be virtually silent to become intolerable.

The raw food brought you out of all kinds of tolerances, which was reflected by symptoms of “allergic” reactions, so that your body reacted again normally to antigens of cooked food. Immune vigilance is proof of good health. This vigilance has undoubtedly extended to more and more antigens along the duration of your practice.

Best regards
GCB

[Hanna]

Define the term "true instinctive stop".

Do you only have noticed one form of instinctive stop namely the change from pleasant to unpleasant?

There are lot of different forms of instinctive stops beginning with an itching in the oral cavity and ending with an irritation of the throat. More forms here: Die instinktive Sperre

Dates and other cultivated fruits and vegetables normally have only faint stops but they have like you have mentioned. Mother nature can be very tender and smooth. In the case of ignoring faint stops she can be hard and cruel:

Hi Susan,
I don´t believe mother nature is cruel even if we ignore faint stops. But I think that we are supposed by mother nature to stop eating BEFORE there is a (clear) alliesthetic stop (= instinctive stop in gcb´s definition). I think that we are supposed to stop eating when there is an intuitive stop which usually occurs together with the first faint signs of an instinctive stop or BEFORE there is any sign of an instinctive stop. Intuition integrates information (including subconscious information) that otherwise would be unclear or contradictory. I think that a clear alliesthetic stop is just some kind of emergency brake.

[Hanna]

The raw food brought you out of all kinds of tolerances, which was reflected by symptoms of “allergic” reactions, so that your body reacted again normally to antigens of cooked food. Immune vigilance is proof of good health.

I hope that you are right!

[Susan]

I don´t believe mother nature is cruel even if we ignore faint stops.

Maybe the word cruel is a little bit hard but the symptoms created by nature after ignoring faint stops are at least annoying: for example a sniffing nose, skin blemishes, bad temper or a lack of concentration.

But I think that we are supposed by mother nature to stop eating BEFORE there is a (clear) alliesthetic stop (= instinctive stop in gcb´s definition). I think that we are supposed to stop eating when there is an intuitive stop which usually occurs together with the first faint signs of an instinctive stop or BEFORE there is any sign of an instinctive stop. Intuition integrates information (including subconscious information) that otherwise would be unclear or contradictory. I think that a clear alliesthetic stop is just some kind of emergency brake.

Agreed.

[GCB]

The problem is primarily a question of vocabulary. What do we call "instinctive stop"? A sudden stop such as we can’t continue, as happens with pineapples, kiwis, figs ? Or a set of sensations that one must know how to interpret as a sign of satisfaction or danger?

Subsidiary question: Why are there products with which these events are very clear, almost intrangressibles, and others who are in much more rounded or blunt forms?

Animals stop extremely neatly with all natural products. We may therefore be tempted to think that’s not only the fault of the products, but also that of a bad learning of alliesthesic mechanisms, and perhaps of a genetic drift.

On the other hand, the animal probably does not only take account of flavor changes, but also of internal sensations associated with ingestion, such as feeling of fullness or satisfaction. Experience shows that if we want to balance properly, we must stop at the slightest sign of red light: either when the taste turns from pleasant to unpleasant or when the first message of the stomach occurs – "as soon as we feel that we have a stomach" ...

With selected products such as commercial fruit, we better stop as soon as the transition occurs from the luminous phase to the pleasant phase, what means we must at first for each natural product discover what the luminous phase means. It is easier to find the luminous phases when using our nose to select foods and by avoiding any overload or other physiological disorder.

So, I call "instinctive stop" all the physiological signals which must be considered to obtain optimal nutritional balance. All sorts of causes make these signals to be not always very clear, including the fact that they have not been learned in early childhood and not put in connection with the consequences of an overload on the physiological state.

This requires an apprenticeship, and the rules of instincto are nothing more than an attempt to define conditions that promote  such a learning. Without these rules, there are often drifts that make nutritional balance unsatisfactory as people become accustomed to an overload condition, i.g. with selected fruit or meat.

It is clear that intuition also plays a role, but it is very difficult to discern the true insights of the inductions which the surrounding context may press on our mind. In addition, the line between true intuition and paranoia are unclear, so I prefer to speak at first only of the physiological aspects. Experience shows that this physiological aspects are sufficient (with unprocessed foods), this according to very specific criteria such as the regulation of the inflammatory tendency.

[Hanna]

It is clear that intuition also plays a role, but it is very difficult to discern the true insights of the inductions which the surrounding context may press on our mind. In addition, the line between true intuition and paranoia are unclear

Agreed, but one can also become paranoid if one tries to detect even the slightest instinctive stop signal. In my case, the intuitive signal is so much clearer and easier to follow. Perhaps even animals follow their intution and not only alliesthetic and stomach signals when it comes to eating? Not only in deciding when to stop eating, but also in deciding when to eat, for example? If I would eat whenever a food smells and tastes good, I would probably eat way too often, late in the evening etc.

Experience shows that this physiological aspects are sufficient (with unprocessed foods), this according to very specific criteria such as the regulation of the inflammatory tendency.

But why did Iguana write:

"According to GCB and others, yes, especially milk and dairy cause inflammations. Cooked food also. Dried fruits, dates, honey maintain it and should be avoided as well in case of inflammation. Fresh fruits intake should be limited."

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/request-for-information-pertaining-to-inflammatory-conditions/msg55385/#msg55385

Why do you think does fruit (and especially fruit with concentrated sugar, such as dates) promote inflammation?