KD's crusade against the infidels and wicked instincto iguanas

[Hanna]

I started my experience with instinctive nutrition 25 years ago

Congratulations on your 25th rawfood jubilee!

 I started my rawfood experiments 16 years ago. I have eaten relatively strictly rawfood for 11 years now and I have eaten neither any cooked food nor milk products for seven and a half years now.

[Iguana]

Thanks, Hanna!

It'll be 25 years in January, so not exactly yet! I never ate anything cooked nor any dairy ever since. I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial.     

[KD]

I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial.     

What is the standard here for 'perfectly proven' assuming this means over those other WOE's (often never even practiced)

Has Dr. Fred bisici 80 years old and 40+ years raw vegan perfectly proven the efficacy of a raw vegan diet low in fruit sugar?
Raw Life Video Show Episode #20 Fred Bisci Speaks about different diets

Can we assume Art De Vany has perfectly proven that people can eat cooked foods everyday as long as they are paleo and have seemingly excellent health into their 70's and 80's?

The New Evolution Diet - Episode 2

has Aajonus perfectly proven after 40 years that diets high in raw dairy are necessary for modern health?

I'm sure many will agree very much that people who live over 100 prove that cooked foods in general are healthy.

I'm guessing you think the answer is no to these in therms of PROOF, so I'm curious what the EXACT difference is without references to what theories say is good or bad in diet.

In other words, what are the vital statics, or other information used as  comparisons to raw paleo or primal dieters, raw vegans or standards dieters - of which there are some examples in the 40+ year range. Without citing the theoretical possibilities of the diet..what are the concrete measurable comparisons to another persons health both in long term and with greatest results in fixing problems in short term?

further clarifying:

If someone who eats raw dairy or raw vegan or cooked foods and is seemingly healthy for decades and can claim superior health on online forums, how does one prove without citing the theoretical tenants (what is good or bad to eat) of what the dieter believes..that the instincto dieter is physically/emotionally etc.. more healthy?

are people willing to put up blood work or other vitals, or paranoias aside about mainstream testing methods, at least simple images of their teeth, skin, hair, eyes etc.. for examination to gauge vs cooked fooders or other raw gurus?

can a new member join the forum and claim eating instincto for 50 years and also perfectly prove something? What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...

[Iguana]

What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...

None.

[goodsamaritan]

Thanks, Hanna!

It'll be 25 years in January, so not exactly yet! I never ate anything cooked nor any dairy ever since. I think we, long termers, have perfectly proven that instinctive 100% raw paleo nutrition is perfectly sustainable and utmost beneficial.     

Let's drink to that!
It works for Iguana.
I use instinctive techniques on the people I heal to choose the best fruits for them at that moment of illness, and it works and gives broad smiles.

[Hanna]

KD: For me, it suffices (and is reassuring) to know that there are some long-term raw food dieters not DAMAGED by their raw food diet  and not LESS healthy than standard western dieters.

[KD]

KD: For me, it suffices (and is reassuring) to know that there are some long-term raw food dieters not DAMAGED by their raw food diet  and not LESS healthy than standard western dieters.

ok. I'm just curious if you can list what criteria you are using to say even that. I assume you have met at meetups etc..?

You may be missing the point. On any health forum you can find people claiming the practice they have been doing is the best, the utmost healthy or the most efficient at this or that. This seems to be OK, or at least normal I guess. Then you have people that not only claim that this diet has provided THEM with health, but that regularly cite every other approach is actually unhealthy or harmful. Do you think this is ok? Without actual evidence it is ok to do this even though every possible WOE has such examples of being alive and typing? Not to mention many of  those examples are stricken from participating that way (due often to pressing over facts or evidence, even when they have it) and others exempt from any other standards or observations of what might be considered healthy?

Can't you see how there is massive contradictions with this way of thinking - that as long as people are not-unwell (which to me also requires proof, I've met plenty standard dieters healthier than raw foodists - due to  whatever factors) this makes it not only healthy but the absolute most healthy thing for everyone in every situation? As much so that when people are ill and looking for specific things they can do that this approach is literally given as the best solution? There must be some very specific thing, some exact experienced factor which makes it healthier or more healing than other options that have longevity - as per the few examples chosen - that makes it valid to discredit others? (which is different than citing satisfaction with ones own choices, or claiming to choose an OK approach)

It is apparently not ok for people to cite fruitarians or Aajonus or Art De Vany or any other person or gurus long term successes as even talking points in arguments on this forum..never-mind blanketly criticize any number of diets on raw paleo forum as being incorrect for not specifically following those diets.

Given your own..and the only other semi-member who qualifies as instincto but also questions some basic instincto tenets..and the fact that there seems to be no single other member since inception who has transitioned to pure instincto..It would seem people could be educated more on instinctos merits if there were at the very least examples of dieters once on other diets (raw paleo, primal, ZC etc...) to compare. That is, if not people actually making attempts to show and share their personal results..which is really what health forums are about, not about saying this or that is right indifferent to supplying or acknowledging evidence.

[Dorothy]

What is the standard here for 'perfectly proven' assuming this means over those other WOE's (often never even practiced)

Has Dr. Fred bisici 80 years old and 40+ years raw vegan perfectly proven the efficacy of a raw vegan diet low in fruit sugar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShPbfaUAmo&feature=related

Can we assume Art De Vany has perfectly proven that people can eat cooked foods everyday as long as they are paleo and have seemingly excellent health into their 70's and 80's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipvwSAzOEis&feature=youtu.be

has Aajonus perfectly proven after 40 years that diets high in raw dairy are necessary for modern health?

I'm sure many will agree very much that people who live over 100 prove that cooked foods in general are healthy.

I'm guessing you think the answer is no to these in therms of PROOF, so I'm curious what the EXACT difference is without references to what theories say is good or bad in diet.

In other words, what are the vital statics, or other information used as  comparisons to raw paleo or primal dieters, raw vegans or standards dieters - of which there are some examples in the 40+ year range. Without citing the theoretical possibilities of the diet..what are the concrete measurable comparisons to another persons health both in long term and with greatest results in fixing problems in short term?

further clarifying:

If someone who eats raw dairy or raw vegan or cooked foods and is seemingly healthy for decades and can claim superior health on online forums, how does one prove without citing the theoretical tenants (what is good or bad to eat) of what the dieter believes..that the instincto dieter is physically/emotionally etc.. more healthy?

are people willing to put up blood work or other vitals, or paranoias aside about mainstream testing methods, at least simple images of their teeth, skin, hair, eyes etc.. for examination to gauge vs cooked fooders or other raw gurus?

can a new member join the forum and claim eating instincto for 50 years and also perfectly prove something? What actually evidence is being put forward here as proof?...

Ah - KD - the more I read of what you have to say the more I like you. Perceptive - intelligent.

I would say that what Iguana has put forth as proof is that just like the rest of the old-timers in any style of eating that it is POSSIBLE to eat such and such a way and be healthy. This is a pretty big statement when it comes to eating raw animal foods as most of society thinks that eating one little bit of raw meat will give you parasites and you will die a quick and horrible death.

There is another level though. In Instincto - and tell me if I'm correct here Iguana - there is the emphasis in trusting oneself above others. Smelling, tasting, feeling - using all your senses to determine what food is good for you. The basic rules against eating foods conjured up later in human history is done in order to keep one senses pure enough to determine for oneself what one "should" be eating. There's no one saying that you have to eat this or that to be healthy or so and so percent or buy this gadget or buy this product. No one is saying - do it like me or you are doing it wrong. The whole message is that if it tastes bad, smells bad and feels bad - it probably IS bad is important. I can't believe how many people go on and on and on with a particular diet looking and feeling horrible because someone else told them it was good for them. It boggles my mind. Instincto's message, in my view, is that YOU are the guru. If you tune in and listen to your own body, you have all that you need to make the right decisions for yourself. I really love that. With Iguana as an example (ok - so he can't prove anything just like the rest), at least it can open your mind to a way which can then be a new choice and perhaps will give someone pause when they eat up whatever someone ELSE is trying to feed them and perhaps ask the question if it wouldn't be better to trust themselves knowing that others seem to have done that a long time and come out ok.

I think Iguana doing his thing a long time counts more because what's he saying is: Don't listen to what I eat - listen to what YOUR body wants to eat. That sets him apart in my eyes.

[KD]

 No one is saying - do it like me or you are doing it wrong.

By the way, I’ve been thinking for a long time that I should once denounce this idea commonly expressed here : "experiment and see what works for you." Because it’s impossible to notice the long-term harmful effects of a stuff and certain foods such as coffee, beer or even some drugs can cause a short-term sensation of well-being while being particularly noxious in the long-term.

François

[KD]

 I can't believe how many people go on and on and on with a particular diet looking and feeling horrible because someone else told them it was good for them. It boggles my mind. Instincto's message, in my view, is that YOU are the guru. If you tune in and listen to your own body, you have all that you need to make the right decisions for yourself. I really love that. With Iguana as an example (ok - so he can't prove anything just like the rest), at least it can open your mind to a way which can then be a new choice and perhaps will give someone pause when they eat up whatever someone ELSE is trying to feed them and perhaps ask the question if it wouldn't be better to trust themselves knowing that others seem to have done that a long time and come out ok.

Dorothy I think maybe your ability to see good in things is clouding your observations here or perhaps you haven't witnesses enough proselytizing to understand you are citing the exact opposite of how it is.  - or my impression anyway.
 
More than any other person/ideology is there such a large percentage of posts about someone doing something wrong or harmful. Often the victim is a new member who never has a single other post or someone looking to tweak a single part of their diet in witch they have no interest in instincto. There is difference between making someone question their modern WOE and downright making a claim that what they are doing is incorrect. If people are not speaking from their own experience and want to push one thing over another thing don't you think it requires some kind of evidence? As I said/meant...many other people have seemingly good results and are not even aloud to have their say whatsoever on this forum..even with evidence. According to instincto..all of those WOEs are not different paths to success as you say but to disease of some sort, going against nature an' all.
 
I don't know what you mean about how others equally can't prove things. I guess it depends on what you mean by proof. Some basic stuff is good enough for me personally. It would be nice to have general standards and measurements we could all agree on but my expectation for evidence in this case is pretty lax. If people can simply provide documentation or even anecdotes about people on past diets and/or medical documents..doesn't sound like a whole lot to ask.  Of course its not really proof either..but better than what we have presently: the same credibility any fruitarian/breatharian has over the internet which is some kind of idea which proves the reality rather than the reverse. The point was more that 0 others are aloud the luxury on this forum to claim anything as having superiority without evidence. Notice claims of "the Bear" Aajonus etc.. consistently get shot down no matter how many examples of people's 'cures'. Of course in the case of "The Bear", this is a perfect example longevity might not be the best case if their are examples of cancer et al..which is why when people arn't 100% forthcoming about their health that seemingly perfect ideas can shed poor light.
 
So I think you missed the purpose of those specific examples. Yes we should be grateful to have long term examples of people eating raw animal foods..for the issues you brought up, but should we also be grateful to have examples of people that have eaten only fruits for decades or claim to drink only water to gauge what is potentially healthful or don't we need other basic evaluations for such people independent of what our disputed ancestral knowledge says? Afterall, even if we have a dimensional window into the past that proves man ate nothing but meats or nothing but fruits..does this immediately change what kind of life spans, energy level, joy, physique etc..people today experience?
 
I suggest looking at some of the other threads in this sub-forum and notice how like on frutarian forums that even if the few instincto members mention that they are doing their own interpretation or experimenting with leaving out this or that - they are immediately ridiculed as if paleo man ever did such things etc...
 
---

The issue is pretty simple. notice how many posts in other non-instincto forums plug the instinco diet directly, ignoring the subject at hand as bogus or downright saying it is harmful based entirely on instincto principles and not on past experiences.
 
[in a health forum on liver and gallbladder flushing]
 

I don't know what's that kind of diet you describe, but it looks fancy to me. All I can say is "eat instincto" and you would be all right.

 
but also as you say about blindly following a diet iregardless of physical outcomes..the setting for that is perfect.

If someone already follows and idea that 1.) everything in nature is perfect (no to little disease) 2.) that this also applies to modern situations. then of course the solution is only to attempt to restore some balance in nature. Other than this in itself being an idea that is seen by some as naive, it raises the problem you suggest that one can believe they are doing everything absolutely correct..shunting all the things they should and following all the rules...yet be pushed up a wall with no other options inside that idea.
 

[Iguana]

Thanks Dorothy, good post  . The only thing I don’t totally agree with is this quote:

The basic rules against eating foods conjured up later in human history is done in order to keep one senses pure enough to determine for oneself what one "should" be eating.

As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the instincto discovery, in the ‘60s, the pioneers were eating all raw, unmixed and unprocessed but including grain and dairy. Then, they found out that each time some of them drank milk after a sufficiently long period without it, they started to have troubles such as infected wounds or even spontaneous infections. Other series of experiment showed that behavior’s troubles in mice used for experiments, other animals and even humans were linked with wheat consumption. Thus, just by eating 100% raw unprocessed food for a sufficient length of time and carefully observing the results showed that we are not adapted to typically Neolithic food such as grain and dairy. The theoretical explanations came after the empirical findings. 

(quotes of Dorothy and of me)

Mister KD, I don’t have the time to read and try to understand you second post above and start again to interminably argue with you. But about your first post above, may I remind you what my angry friend Alphagruis and now (I suppose) your translator-friend wrote for us: 

A physicist friend of mine, Gerard Gewinner, has at my request written the following text intended to those who may think that feeling better shortly after a diet change is a kind of proof that their new diet is more healthy :

The response of complex systems such as the biosphere, the climatic system or a living organism to various perturbations is...complex. It exhibits usually an extended range of response or correlation delays that implies different things happening at largely different time scales as a consequence of the perturbation. Clearly such systems display historical character with their state at time t depending essentially on past events at all time scales.

In contrast many simple physical or technological systems such as a Geiger counter or a photomultiplier are characterized by and rely on the existence of a single relaxation time that measures the typical time scale over which memory of past events is definitely lost.

This situation makes the experimental investigation of complex systems quite difficult, involved and generates possibly a lot of confusion. For instance in life science this means that the effect of a  dietary change cannot be simply and reliably inferred from short term studies but should in principle be carefully observed over several generations. Just think of the famous Pottenger experiment on cats.

That is also why the experiments mother Nature has already done on our species in the past such as reported by anthropologists on our untouched by civilization hunter-gatherer ancestor's way of life and diet, are so tremendously important to acknowledge, learn everything we can about and finally try to take advantage of. Similarly in medical care if a patient feels better today, this unfortunately does not necessarily mean that it is merely the result of the drug swallowed or dietary change made yesterday.

[KD]

both Art de Vany and Fred Bisici (and myself...) above would both say they have trouble with milk and grain, yet this does not makes every aspect of their path unquestionable and every solution they believe applicable to everyone on this forum. They cannot use their longevity to make a case in an argument over all issues and similarly to your own -  their beliefs do not represent what most people on this forum believe and practice to the best of their knowledge. Without specific analysis of how healthy these 'pioneers' are and based only on their 'discoveries' they are just as useful or useless to people as Tibetan monks or breatharians in establishing what is the best diet for a modern person. Their discoveries just as useful/useless as the lipid hypothesis and other discoveries that seem to make sense but don't always line up with reality.

As far as the average visitor or forum participant is concerned, people can be typing up bullshit from their death-bed about how the world is..and this has nothing to do with anything unless people are actually contrasting and comparing their results with other raw (and cooked) food approaches. If someone were to present superior health eating almost entirely milk or grain products when they tried other approaches, this SHOULD make a reasonable person re-asses their belief..not assume that person's health was bad without the possibility of being otherwise.

Don't know what you are talking about with translation or this Heisenbergian thing but this seems to be some kind of excuse about 'relativity' and not needing to actually showing evidence. Something to excuse every time you comment that sick people just need to do what you and and your philosophy says and do not need to address their D3, B-12, bringing consciousness to their fat and carb consumption or every possible thing brought up here that makes this forum a 'forum' and not a vehicle for any kind of ideology..even "raw paleo" as being absolute AFAIK

[Dorothy]

KD - you are right - I have not gone and read the threads in this area yet - just the generalized theories. Also, what you say about people being able to write anything on forums is also true - I learned that the hard way. Blood work, doctors and pictures all present problems however. What happens when someone is diabetic and has terrible blood work indicating the beginnings of heart disease and just about any healthful diet has instances of improving those numbers? What happens if someone feels tremendously better and has healed terrible diseases through a diet yet their numbers are not good or there is a "bad" number determined by medical science based upon "the average"? For instance, here's a made up case, what if a raw meat eater were to have a very high white cell count because they ingest bacteria and parasites that their immune systems have to fight but they are outrageously healthy otherwise and in fact - perhaps the fact that their immune systems have to fight makes them actually stronger?

The issue with diet protocols always comes down to the all too human foible of believing that because something has had a good response in one person it will necessary be good for everyone and promoting it as such. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this. Even if someone does present "proof" does it necessarily mean that it is what is right for me based on my health history, diseases, genetics, constitution, lifestyle, priorities etc?

How can we tell if a diet is good for us or not? This is why at least the theory of instincto is appealing to me.

Even Pottenger's (which I haven't read about in decades so please forgive me if I don't have a full memory or understanding) to the best of my recollection started to get good results quite quickly. That's why they noticed that when they ran out of their regular food and gave the cats they were experimenting on for another reason raw meat that they noticed better health quite quickly and decided to make that a subject to be studied rather than what they started off to study and that's how come there were many generations to come at all.

One might not get the full results of a new way of eating immediately, but good results from a good change are not that slow in coming and when you get used to using your senses and your intuition around foods then the positive feedback often can become immediate as the opposite can be true like when something is really bad the body can try to get it out immediately by purging it. When you are used to eating well it can become obvious when something is not good for you. Even if it would take generations to get to the full benefits - you don't have to wait that long to get clues.

And....... even if it can take decades for full negative affects to take place........ more often than not I bet that there are clues earlier on if one is willing to acknowledge them.

What Iguana says about sharing the experiences of many having the same experience when drinking milk or eating wheat can be useful. It's good to generally hear how different foods affect others. I find it better that the general admonitions not to eat these foods was not theoretical but from actual experiences. That says to me as a thinking person that all I would have to do is not eat these things, put them back in my diet and see if I have the same experience to know if this is particular to that group of people or more general and if that included me or not.

It is the only logical conclusion inmho to take anything that anybody says is a global truth about diet with a grain of salt, analyze it logically and then see if it applies individually. The sad thing is that our societal systems teach us not to question those that we perceive to have authority. Authority changes with environment. I can't tell you how glad I am that you are here KD!

[Iguana]

Someone asked me this question by PM :

I seen that you eat peas, and I've read that they are apparently not paleo because they're legumes? What's your opinion on them?

Here’s my reply, as it concurs with what you wrote, Dorothy:

Hi,

I don't know, the instincto practice is based on results of meticulous experiments on hundreds of animals (mostly mice) and humans which lasted several years, during the 60s and 70s. It's these experiments that showed the nuisance of cooked food, dairy and grain (especially wheat). As far as I know, it didn’t show that legumes were harmful.

I don’t think there’s a clear line between what is paleo and what is not, except for cereals and dairy which are clearly Neolithic.

Cheers
François

[KD]

KD - you are right - I have not gone and read the threads in this area yet - just the generalized theories. Also, what you say about people being able to write anything on forums is also true - I learned that the hard way.

Basically people seeming to do well though any method (claims, photos, blood work)  don't prove something is good. People proposing the absolute best solution for everyone or ideas about what the ideal human diet do need to at least meet basic specifications or expectations that can be met on other approaches. This isn't just physical measurable things..but also actually curing conditions. At the very least one would have to provide information that one doesn't have basic conditions associated with the very things one claims the diet helps, that it is indeed carrying the theoretical weight..don't you think?

The issue with diet protocols always comes down to the all too human foible of believing that because something has had a good response in one person it will necessary be good for everyone and promoting it as such. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this. Even if someone does present "proof" does it necessarily mean that it is what is right for me based on my health history, diseases, genetics, constitution, lifestyle, priorities etc?

yeah but this like the 'species specific diet" on fruitarian forums is exactly NOT what is suggested with instincto. like Hygiene it states that there is one way, that there are no foods -natural or processed (supplements, medicines in plants, fermented,heated etc...)- that one can artificially add to fix something, and no "diets" (intentionally removing or eating any food) or other food related therapies that will be beneficial other than following ones "instincts", or at least none that will have no consequences. So everyone else is in fact wrong. There is no heaps of evidence to the contrary that can sway this idea that the best results happen in such way so it should only be logical that people should have unequivocally way better health results in all aspects. This all is also completely besides the point to the actual criticisms expressed by members here and ex instincto dieters about how closely a moderns persons instincts go to actually manifesting a natural diet.

Its not that Art De Vany looking good or having good bloodwork or whatever PROVES anything about cooking per se.... If someone claims that cooking is poison and then die within weeks of making that statement at 25..wouldn't that suggest something about Art's decisions being less unrealistic than whatever the other persons idea was? Just a made up example of course, but that is the crux of the comparrison to provide what Hanna suggested which is evidence that people are if not healthier..but at the very least not suffering problems that people on other approaches do not have and suggesting those are worse.

There are lots of ways to misinterpret medical data such s WBC, BG etc..and ways people might differ on raw diets. The thing is lets say a vegan is saying one should not supplement with b-12 in any situation (to someone questioning such) but then tests on that person say b-12 is beyond low and the other symptoms are made clear some way to others. Is it not accurate to say that the tests and observations of those symptoms says something about their original idea?

Also of what percentage of people follow an approach would one suspect that such a pleasurable worry free approach that would not be worth the burden of returning to cooking, or eating AV recipes every day, is perhaps not 100% problem free? If 1-2 percent of such pioneers still follow that approach can one cite the total infallibility of such theories?

[Iguana]

(…) is exactly NOT what is suggested with instincto. like Hygiene it states that there is one way, that there are no foods -natural or processed (supplements, medicines in plants, fermented,heated etc...)- that one can artificially add to fix something, and no "diets" (intentionally removing or eating any food) or other food related therapies that will be beneficial other than following ones "instincts", or at least none that will have no consequences. So everyone else is in fact wrong.

Here goes Mister KD explaining what « instincto » states…

I should probably leave the moderation of this section and let this duty to you, KD since you know better than me what «instincto» suggests and states. You can also write much longer posts and faster than I can read, so I think you’re the right person for that task.   

[KD]

as usual, points are never addressed and blanket 'don't have time' or other excuses are given. If i've stated something wrong merely correct it.

I havn't professed an idea is superior, only that I and others have strong suspicions that instincto claims are superior or even beneficial for health. Until -and ideally also after -these suspicions are 'proven' unfair, people shouldn't claim that others shouldn't do this or that based on this concept...and only share their experiences or share things as ideas not facts.

You have no time..yet you write posts all the time..including during this thread. I also have things to do like a full time job, another 'job' of sorts, and other passions and priorities- and  yet I continue to press other points rather than beating the dead horse as you like to say about:

how you literally actually said that you and ONE PERSON you have presumalably now never met (correct me here also) know virtually nothing about other than she shares your idea: has not only proven..but "perfect proven" your idea is healthy.

so you could reverse the favor by at least answering the questions that clearly debunk at the very least how your ideas have not resulted in success for everyone as if that 1-2 % is not correct..it surely ain't 100% or close.

yet

my predictions is you'll lay low for a bit then be back similarly with absolutist statements in the other sub-forums like the two things I quoted just within the last week or so...being absolutely ridiculous assertions of dogma into real life serious issues which could have harmful consequences.

[Iguana]

as usual, points are never addressed and blanket 'don't have time' or other excuses are given. If i've stated something wrong merely correct it.

What are the points? If your posts were clear, polite, accurate and concise, I could answer but I don’t want to read and painstakingly try to understand endless pages of aggressive and intricate verbiage. Have you read the GCB’s book which is freely available in English online and for which I’ve provided the link http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggindex.html several times ?

Moreover, I'm not the lawyer to the defense of Mr. Instincto and I’m not a shareholder of “Instincto Inc.” I’ve just experimented instinctive nutrition for soon 25 years and I happen to know personally the persons at the origin of the experiment and theory. I don’t pretend the theory is right, it’s just a theory like any other and as such it will have to be modified or superseded in the future (if there’s a future for our civilization) once we have a better understanding of the nature and the universe . 

Anyway, you seem to have grown a personal detestation of me, you previously called me a liar and you wrote that I presented myself dishonestly. (You should have been banned for that but I didn’t want you to be banned.). Thus, whatever I may answer, you won’t believe me, so why should I undertake such an effort?   

[Dorothy]

KD wrote:

"yeah but this like the 'species specific diet" on fruitarian forums is exactly NOT what is suggested with instincto. like Hygiene it states that there is one way, that there are no foods -natural or processed (supplements, medicines in plants, fermented,heated etc...)- that one can artificially add to fix something, and no "diets" (intentionally removing or eating any food) or other food related therapies that will be beneficial other than following ones "instincts", or at least none that will have no consequences. So everyone else is in fact wrong"

That's disappointing.     I guess I far from fit the extincto bill then as I love ferments and herbs.

The point you made KD about the person dying of exactly the diseases that their particular diet are supposed to heal is valid. When doing my cancer research for instance I learned that Clarke who developed zappers and an elaborate system of curing cancer died of cancer it made me stop on a dime and I threw out the whole lot of what she wrote if it was exclusively her creation and felt lucky I found out she died of cancer before trying out a zapper and perhaps doing harm.

But does this mean that one would throw out an entire way of eating only because one person of many dies of cancer? That's a serious question for you. If someone eating a 100% raw paleo diet in this future for instance dies of cancer - does that negate the diet? What if some people are cured and some people die with a diet? Maybe no diet alone can cure certain cancers in certain people at certain stages and some cancers are based upon exposures and not diet. We are faced with the same problem as judging a whole diet based upon one person living to a hundred in perfect health that promotes such a diet aren't we? We can't say that a diet is good because one person says that it is good or if they give some evidence of perfect health and vitality into old age so we can't exactly say that a diet that many say is good for them is necessarily bad because one or several people did poorly on it while others thrive.

What is needed is double blind studies of large groups of people to be able to make generalizations - and that's not about to happen when it comes to raw food diets. Your b12 example is a great example. There can be vegans with normal b12 and low b12 and meat eaters that are normal and low in b12. The problems come when someone says that b12 shouldn't be supplemented no matter how you feel or what your test results are because their way is best for everyone and therefore b12 is not an issue and more importantly if someone blogs and states that a vegan diet is ideal for everyone when they themselves feel sick and have record low b12. It's the putting the hands over the eyes and fingers in the ears to differing results that is the issue. Take that even further - if they do have perfect b12 - is that necessarily because of the diet and is having perfect numbers necessarily a product of diet if referring to just one person or do we need to consider genetics, or past eating or a thousand other variables.

The only way to make progress figuring out what generally works since there are no studies is for us to openly share our very subjective experiences - good and bad - without attachment or censorship with some humility that we don't actually know - because we don't. We only have a small sampling of subjective data.



 

[KD]

Anyway, you seem to have grown a personal detestation of me, you previously called me a liar and you wrote that I presented myself dishonestly. (You should have been banned for that but I didn’t want you to be banned.). Thus, whatever I may answer, you won’t believe me, so why should I undertake such an effort?   

I think its the other way around.

What are the points? If your posts were clear, polite, accurate and concise, I could answer but I don’t want to read and painstakingly try to understand endless pages of aggressive and intricate verbiage.

Simple quesitons to answer:
mostly yes or no

you certainly have the expertise to answer almost all of them off the top of your head in 5 minutes.


Was it ok to use the phrase 'perfectly proven' that an entire way of thinking is healthy considering you were referring to two people with seemingly no real life assessment or any real comparison standards or to others who have competing health ideas?

I had asked: What actual evidence is being put forward here as proof?...

and you said none.

Do you agree that without additional evidence this is no more usefull to members than that of raw vegans or cooked foooders with such longevity when it comes to which specific diet to choose on RPF or elsewhere?

Will you retract the original comment and admit you have not proven anything other raw animal food diets have not without proper evidence?

Will you or others provide blood work, specific photos as requested etc..? (with the expectation that people can't make 100% solid judgements on these)

Do you think if you see qualities in others that you believe are bad that you can trace it back to your thoughts about their diet? Is it understandable for people to question the diet of instinctos if they suspect their health doesn't match up with the healthiest possible human diet or even just other people trying other things?

You cite experiments of instinctos on humans and mice, how specifically do these experiements differ from those of Cordain, the Medical prfession, raw vegans or any others undertaken since the history of science? Havn't these produced drastically different conclusions? Are these instincto conclusions now half a decade old absolutely unquestionable with endless research following? What if people have proven these experiments wrong (on animals or humans) since?

Is it possible these experiments do not lead to finding the idea human diet or that other current methods might estimate a better diet?

How many of these original experimenters or instincto dieters continued with the diet? How many went on to to other raw food diets? Other diets?

Other than social obligations, why would someone go off an instincto diet?

Is it at all possible that some people did not thrive on an instincto diet?

If these ideas are not unquestionable and you are presenting a theory, is it OK to tell people that what they are doing is "wrong" (see quotes in thread - or many other statements) and to give the kinds of 'advice' you give on a regular basis?

Particulary without above 'proof' shouldn't one be required to imply opinion based on a single theory when its not actually based on experience with a particular thing at hand  (or uses other 'present company' member's 'statistics' or other statistics that people actually have some access to) ?

And slightly more complicated: What specific criteria do you use to measure your health? To criticize others as unhealthy? Do you suspect that after 25 years of health experimentation that your health has thrived more than anyone else on any other approach?

---
Look forward to your comments

[KD]

But does this mean that one would throw out an entire way of eating only because one person of many dies of cancer? That's a serious question for you. If someone eating a 100% raw paleo diet in this future for instance dies of cancer - does that negate the diet?

Nah
Cancer is really complicated, but things like b-12, d3, not as much. Ideas about sugars and cancer, fats and heart disease..these are issues where people can share information..but if someone outright makes a claim that x or y isolated thing is not necessary and ends up having issues with that...well that is what I meant. Just explaining my example with the vegans of course. We all want to be following the diet that prevents diseases even though we can do our best to cite the likely causation. People need to be honest though and give credit when its due to other factors and ideas, not be dense around ideas which seem true. If people die of cancer, certainly its more of an issue if they are saying that the diet is mans natural diet or it has better records of curing such..although even then unnatural things certainly factor in.


If someone makes a statement like one shouldn't take supplements (in the case of veganism) or Don't need X ammount of D3 or whatever..they need to take responsiblity for that, that they know they arn't giving somone harmful adivce, and certainly that they know they are actually thriving on the ammount they have. Certainly they should know if they themselves are meeting at least medical levels of such and in the paleo world - undergoing the strains and stress a paleo person would and not laying around-  before making a judgement on those things. Whether supplements are bad or good, the concept is an important one as to whether people need to make non-dogmatic and proactive steps to increase their health.

---

Much of what i'm talking about applies only to people making sweeping generalizations. Oviously everyone makes claims that they don't know 100%. Ideally people express things from their experience but I'm not claiming I or other forum members don't make claims that might not be true. But likelwise generally people arn't saying that if they just do this or that they WILL be insured anything,...nevermind be absolutely healthy! Saying that if people don't do X, give up Y etc... or be unhealthy is even worse IMO and so obviously false when looking at the world as a whole as to what 'works' or doesn't.


-edit

I agree with your concerns about interpretations and such. When you say "Take that even further - if they do have perfect b12 - is that necessarily because of the diet and is having perfect numbers necessarily a product of diet if referring to just one person or do we need to consider genetics, or past eating or a thousand other variables. " this is exactly what I meant by photos, data etc..not proving anything (in the positive) as preexisting health factors in to alot of things. Of course ones health in general or how one feels or thinks they feel is factored in by such as well. So you are right in people having knowledge and experience where it not being always applicable transferring to people that don't absorb b-12 well...or whatever.

..but poor data results and yes, photos I do believe will call BS on some things, particularly eternal youth or other claims of say fruitarians. I mean being vit A deficient while eating tons of fruit...that means something real considering it is abundant in fruit etc...

[PrimalPrime]

I wrote you guys a four page letter but it got lost in the loading process. here's a summary:

Basically

KD is right

Dorothy is right

Iguana(Francois) is right as well

Everyone made valid points/arguments. "YOU are the guru!" <--that line will be stolen) but in all seriousness KD isn't wrong when he says that basic citation and/or scientific evidence should be submitted when people have the access to the right info, even just a tiny bit. Problem with the paleo community is that we are based off testimonials by gurus coming up with a brand name diet and not a learned professional(not that i claim they're better or preferred) because there is no industry or special interest behind raw organic foodstuffs compared to processed grain products to fund the research. so if you want to win over people similar to KD, you got to approach in a rational scientific manner sometimes.

Dorothy seems to be valid and its funny because KD is basically saying alot of what Dorothy is saying, but somehow missing each other's point

Iguana(Francois) is right on with the geiger counter example, and that nothing is concrete and everything is tentative. it can be inferred that by what both KD and Iguana seem to both agree on is this is a forum and that we are here to share experiences(usually in the case of a forum like this) and communicate so that we can come to a greater understanding about ourselves and our experiences on particular diets, which leads me to ask....

So how do you all generally feel when you eat fat mono?

[Hanna]

KD, didn´t you notice the irony in my answer to you? And, as I understood it, Iguana´s claim ("perfectly proven" etc.) was ironic too. Therefore, he used a smiley, and therefore, he admitted already that (of course) nothing is perfectly proven.

[KD]

KD, didn´t you notice the irony in my answer to you? And, as I understood it, Iguana´s claim ("perfectly proven" etc.) was ironic too. Therefore, he used a smiley, and therefore, he admitted already that (of course) nothing is perfectly proven.

Hanna right..just like other times I know if he responds at all its going to be some kind of semantic arguing. Just like my 'bannable offence' of claiming untruths and politics (not actually answwering questions and finding other ways to ignore arguments or bury them, also: I have power to ban you for asking questions etc..). The denied-and-eventually-sorta-admitted-but-not accusation before if I remeber was precisely the same..that comments were specifically given in completely unrealated topics than instincto. That these subjects were poo pooed without any real knowledge of the subject yet claiming people were outright wrong because it went against 'nature' or instincto rules. Even though countless examples were given that wern't even my words (forum quotes) and obviously showed this to be true..these were 'mean' accusations on my part...

above is says "I don’t pretend the theory is right" if this not an untrue statement and 'perfectly proven' was just some sarcastic way of saying all is realtive in the universe, why is it that its ok to consistantly reference other things as the wrong way of looking at things and then cite the 'success' of insincto diets without evidence? It would be almost fine if this was limited to helping people thrive on the instincto forum but it is not. Is it it always sarcastic to make these claims on other forums (either to cite individual health or a movement as a whole) without any other information about their health?

so regardless of whether I'm nitpicking on things here and there..there are questions that need to be answerwed about the actual results of this health experimentation that is often non-sarcastically presented as either flawless, perfectible applicable to all situations (with confidence that people don't need to worry about x or HAVE to drop Y) , and always yielding better results for short and long terms than other processes.

[Dorothy]

Hey PrimalPrime - I like to go back and forth with KD even when we basically agree hashing out the details in his viewpoints because the more I do that the more I learn from him.

KD - I get your points about the real obvious basics of b12 and d3 and vitamin A as generally accepted indicators and that a picture can disprove claims to eternal youth etc. I mean - your pictures speak volumes! It's generalizations with even these though without enough data based on individuals that is always tricky still of course, but you understand this I'm sure.

When I was hanging out on the food forum with many vegans -- because "some" raw vegans claim that the diet will keep you young and vigorous and looking great -- when older people posted their pictures they were torn apart even though the picture showed someone aging naturally or even better than average and the person did not claim that they were going to be young forever. So pictures can be tricky when it comes to regular non-guru folk. Again, history, genetics, other factors. For instance, after what I went through in the last year I would hate for anyone to judge my diet based upon how I look now!   

Just to make it clear - we are agreeing and I'm supporting most of what you are saying and agreeing and restating and you can express yourself so well - so maybe I don't even have to bother - but I will anyway:  It sure is not easy to evaluate diet when it comes to a bunch of individuals and little scientific data on any raw diet and health. Maybe a billionaire will join us one day and decide to fund some studies - fingers crossed.

Your admonitions regarding be careful to not say that a diet is categorically right and another wrong I am agreeing with you 100% on. It's an easy thing to fall into even without realizing it because as humans we are designed to generalize and it relates to our language abilities -- one word for all those things that are tall and have leaves. We don't see each tree completely on its own terms. This tree with this thing on it called fig gives me food and gives me good feelings so all figs are good and I need to bring all my friends to trees like this and show them. It's part of our survival skills as humans. At this point in our evolution this deeply ingrained desire to generalize can get in the way sometimes. It's can be a challenge to determine when a generalization is useful and when it is getting in the way of perception.