In my view, your "instincto" diet is working for you (if it is) because you are not eating really "instinctively". How could it ever be instinctive to wait x minutes after eating food from group A before eating food from group B? As an example from your practice. I remember very well how all "instinctos" I met tried to apply an immense number of "absolutely necessary" defacto non-instinctive "instincto"-rules like food combining, eating cassia every morning to "detox", certain times for drinking, sniffing at countless foods from countless origins at fixed (!) times during the day, forced eating of animal foods if only fruit is smelling good for x days etc. They all failed.
We’ve never pretended that in a modern life we can regulate everything instinctively! More often than not, you’ve got to go to work and thus have only a lunch time break, so you can’t eat whenever you want. In nature you can’t neither eat as soon as you wake up: you must first move around in search for food. Once you finally have found something edible or caught a prey, only then you can eat. Then if still hungry, you’ll have to find something else and it’s likely to require more time and effort.
You have to be somewhat crazy or at least passionate to deviate so much from the standard by eating everything raw. Hence, there are many “instinctos” who are totally crazy. I
nstinctive raw paleo nutrition doesn’t cure idiocy. A lot of people on so called “instincto” are stupid enough to take flexible advices aimed at beginners for absolute, fixed rules. The ordinary educational system (and religion even more so) favors beliefs in what is taught instead of
urging to question everything and allways ask the how and why as GCB used to insistently plead in his seminars. Leaving a comfortable, somehow religious, system of beliefs in view to reach a scientific way of thinking is too much of a hard change for most people who are neither unable to think by themselves nor systematically use the methodical doubt as we should.
All the
"absolutely necessary" defacto non-instinctive "instincto"-rules you cite are, of course, nothing more than (bendable) advices for beginners embedded in our modern world and having survived on a standard cooked diet during decades. Confusing those suggestions with absolute rules is stupid. Taking them as an intrinsic part of the theory is even more stupid.
Obviously you are unable to discuss anything beside your inctincto religion which is based on nonsense and ignorance in many regards.
Yes, we are absolutely ignorant, as our pre-fire ancestors were and as animals are! It’s a great mistake to think that mankind is largely superior to all animals and that our knowledge is comprehensive enough to allow us to know what and how much to eat of each stuff — notwithstanding how to interact with nature and the universe in general. Modern humans are awfully pretentious.
Concerning my religion, I already stated that I’m the one and only
John Frum (a variant of the Cargo Cult) worshiper outside the island of Tana, Vanuatu. LOL
For example, it's very naive to believe that our body shows reliable instinctive feedback signals when we eat artificial foods that have never been part of human nutrition, overbred fructose bombs like apples and pears for example.
Ever since the beginning of the experiment, around 1965, the question has been to determine with which foodstuffs our alimentary instinct works and how well it works. Of course, it works better with wild stuffs. Nevertheless it hasn’t been found out that apples are atom bombs.
François