How to start

[Iguana]

So the feeling I get from eating grass fed organ meats is comparable to the effect of coffee, or some other neolithic food?

I didn’t mean exactly that, but there are short term effects and long term effects and the firsts can be quite different than the seconds. The assumption we have been experimenting in instinctive nutrition ever since the 60’s is that as long as some raw paleo unprocessed and unmixed food tastes good, then it’s good for us while when it tastes bad, it’s bad for us. This is a general principle which has been supposed to be valid in every aspect of animals’ life. As yet, our experience has never invalidated it.

It’s quite possible that you don’t need to eat so much organs, at least if it tastes bad it certainly means that there are at least some substances in them which are currently detrimental to you in the amount you eat.
 

Isn't out possible I derive some benefit from it even if it didn't taste good?

It’s possible, I don’t know. A natural foodstuff is composed of millions or even billions of different substances, some which may be useful in a certain amount to our body while some others may be detrimental. It’s always a matter of balance between benefits and nuisances with a threshold at a constantly variable amount.   

The cod I ate didn't taste that good so I added lime ro mask not liking the taste. But after I felt great and did a lot of school work which is usually be to unmotivatedd to do.

My diet has been very deficient on iodine, do based on instincto out should have tasted great since I needed the iodine. After I felt god.

We do not think that way in instincto. We don’t search nor care what the different foodstuffs contain: on  the contrary we prefer to ignore it, so that our intellect doesn’t influence our alimentary choices. This is a matter much more complex than just iodine, so complex that our analytic science would need a timescale longer the life of  the Universe ever since the Big Bang to have a comprehensive view of all the intricate interactions between a food and an animal or human body.     

Also how do we know animals really enjoy the taste of all their foods.

We don’t know, we infer it since we fail to see how they could select their food otherwise! That is because they can’t read the gurus’ posts on RawPaleoDietForum to know what and how much to eat…

Anyway, if you ever observed a cat, you must have noticed his apparent pleasure when served a food he likes. 

[Simone]

What's that? AFAIK there's nothing at all of that kind.

The news was spread by the only teacher of anopsology of Italy, you can see the third post at this link: http://www.facebook.com/groups/136658076446141/

"There is again the possibility to practice stays in learning the practice dell'istintonutrizione. Also in France, no longer in the Paris region, but in the Deep South, in Perpignan, at the Mas Belric.
To see photos of the place, visit http://www.masbelric.com/

There are no opening times set, so you can decide when you want your living room. Just book with a little in advance. The cost is about 80 euros per day for one person. If you book for more people, there are reductions in the price. The price is inclusive of accommodation, food and education.

For reservation and more information in Italian / English / French / German please write to the address cdif@hotmail.fr"

[Iguana]

Ok, yes, sorry there is something and I didn't know.

After so long, I finally decided to try the instinctive nutrition.
Today at lunch I put on the table dates, stark delicious apples, kind lettuce, romaine lettuce, carrots and tomatoes and I smell one by one these foods. However I could not figure out if there was salivation and especially I could not understand what had smell better. I could solve these problems by going for 1-2 weeks in Perpignan in Mas Belric in France, home to a new istinctive nutrition center but unfortunately I do not have the economic means...

Can you help me? Thank you

Usually we do not put together on the table veggies and fruits, because fruits have in general a stronger and more attractive smell than vegetables. Nothing had an appealing smell amongst the products you had on the table? Not even the dates or apples?

[LePatron7]

Something else I feel it didn't consider is most animals kill their prey then taste it. Not the other way around

[eveheart]

I don't think these recent attempts to debunk instinctive eating by pointing to wild animal behavior disproves instinctive eating. Quite the opposite, animals are driven by such a pure instinct that we humans cannot identify the effortless functioning of pure instinct when we see it. To say that a very hungry animal will eat anything is not true - that's how the animal gets hungry! by passing food opportunities that don't appeal to it's instinct. A hungry tiger never settles for a mouthful of tasty and filling eucalyptus leaves.

I find that food memory plays a role in instinctive eating. I never try to eat foods that made me feel downright bad when I ate them previously. Instinct to eat can modified by food memory throughout the whole animal kingdom, but this instinct can be masked or misled by modifying food tastes with seasonings.

[Iguana]

I don't think these recent attempts to debunk instinctive eating by pointing to wild animal behavior disproves instinctive eating. Quite the opposite, animals are driven by such a pure instinct that we humans cannot identify the effortless functioning of pure instinct when we see it.

Yes, sure, but I feel that Da Boss is more curious than anything else and it’s always wise to doubt and question any theory. In his seminars GCB used to strongly recommend not to believe but ceaselessly put everything into questioning as a theory is never the absolute truth but only an approximate and provisional tentative to describe the reality, something that will have to be completed, modified or even abandoned in the future when more facts will be known or a better fitting theory, perhaps simpler, will be devised.

Questions and remarks are welcome, they allow us to better understand what we are doing, to think and re-think about it, to search to improve our knowledge and understanding of the world.

To say that a very hungry animal will eat anything is not true - that's how the animal gets hungry! by passing food opportunities that don't appeal to it's instinct. A hungry tiger never settles for a mouthful of tasty and filling eucalyptus leaves.

Sure, animals eating noxious things have died of poisoning before procreating so that their lineage got extinct. Only the ones having the best diet will have survived, the ones eating improper food being weakened and smashed by natural selection.

Something else I feel it didn't consider is most animals kill their prey then taste it. Not the other way around

Yes, I may be wrong but I think most predators try to catch and kill other animals, especially the ones looking like their usual preys. But if they don’t like their smell / taste, they don’t eat it. For example domestic cats kill all the mice they can catch, but they don’t eat the shrews ones.     

[William]

Iguana, in the light of the experience that animals both wild and domestic creatures prefer Lugol's iodine in their drinking water, can you comment on the apparent failure of instincto theory with respect to this:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/daboss88's-healing-schizophrenia-journal/msg107745/#new

[LePatron7]

Right iguana. I'm not trying to debunk instincto. . But learn more. I feel my instincts don't necessarily get me eating the tastiest foods, but those most nourishing. After all my taste buds are still pretty accustomed to unhealthy foods. I'm not even 3 weeks into this diet.

[LePatron7]

Also I'm noticing sweet fruit isn't as appealing or tasty any more. I've been eating less and less fruit. At first I snacked on fruit, now I go for eggs instead, some times marrow bones.

[aLptHW4k4y]

Also I'm noticing sweet fruit isn't as appealing or tasty any more. I've been eating less and less fruit. At first I snacked on fruit, now I go for eggs instead, some times marrow bones.

Aren't you following your instincts then?

[cherimoya_kid]

If instincto worked perfectly, then people eating that way wouldn't commonly overeat sweet fruit, and undereat animal fats.

That's not to say I don't agree with the general principle.  I more or less eat mono-style, myself.  I never mix fruits, nuts, or honey before eating, I only eat them mono-style.  The only food I don't eat mono-style would be meat/fish/fat, because I haven't noticed any digestive problems when I freely mix different types of meat, fish, and animal fat.

I definitely DO notice digestive problems when I mix fruits, nuts, and/or honey up, so I don't do it. 

It's a useful technique, but it's just that, a technique. There's no need to make a belief system out of it, because it has its limitations.

[LePatron7]

Also I'm noticing sweet fruit isn't as appealing or tasty any more. I've been eating less and less fruit. At first I snacked on fruit, now I go for eggs instead, some times marrow bones.

[aLptHW4k4y]

If instincto worked perfectly, then people eating that way wouldn't commonly overeat sweet fruit, and undereat animal fats.

Why exactly is that a problem? Do you think that our instincts for sweet fruit (or animal fats) are flawed?

[LePatron7]

I also eat mono. Except I mix different kinds of plant foods. Ie I might eat some soaked nuts with an apple and avocado.

I also mix animal foods with other animal foods. I never have digestive problems.

[Iguana]

Iguana, in the light of the experience that animals both wild and domestic creatures prefer Lugol's iodine in their drinking water,

Do they? Is Lugol’s iodine something commonly found in nature? 

can you comment on the apparent failure of instincto theory with respect to this:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/daboss88's-healing-schizophrenia-journal/msg107745/#new

Your link leads to a post saying “What exactly is bromine and fluorine” .

Are you supposing that the instincto theory fails to explain why animals get poisoned with processed and artificial substances? If that’s your point (is it?) the instincto theory assumes that the instinctive alimentary regulation works properly only with raw, unprocessed, unmixed  paleo stuff. For example, animals and children also like the sweet taste of ethylene glycol (the common antifreeze for engine’s cooling system) and get poisoned with it. That’s something quite well explained by the instincto theory.

But I’m not sure what your point is.

Right iguana. I'm not trying to debunk instincto. . But learn more. I feel my instincts don't necessarily get me eating the tastiest foods, but those most nourishing. After all my taste buds are still pretty accustomed to unhealthy foods. I'm not even 3 weeks into this diet.

Also I'm noticing sweet fruit isn't as appealing or tasty any more. I've been eating less and less fruit. At first I snacked on fruit, now I go for eggs instead, some times marrow bones.

The most nourishing can often be the tastiest. It’s not the strength of the smell which is relevant, but its attractiveness at the moment. What is the tastiest constantly changes. For example I found this morning very nice, ripe cherimoyas and mangoes from Malaga region, Spain, and I was looking forward to eat them for my lunch. But when I put them on the table, I couldn’t feel any smell from the cherimoyas and the smell of the nice ripe mangoes was not that appetizing at the moment, so I was rather disappointed and I put a goose egg under my nose. Usually it’s very hard to feel a smell from an egg, but this time I felt a slight but very appetizing smell from that egg, so I had two of them plus one hen’s egg and it was a very satisfying  lunch. (It’s not recommended to have two different animals food at a meal because it can make the digestion difficult and/or lead to an overload, but after some years of practice you can easily get rid of all the rules, those rules being only there to guide the beginners).

If instincto worked perfectly, then people eating that way wouldn't commonly overeat sweet fruit, and undereat animal fats.

What makes you think that? Do you know many people eating that way and taking into account (as they should) the fact that modern heavily selected fruits can be eaten in too large amounts? Of course, “instincto” cannot work perfectly with intensely selected modern foods. To work perfectly, we should be in our primitive environment, which is lost, and eat only wild foods. But perfection doesn’t belong to this world.   

It's a useful technique, but it's just that, a technique. There's no need to make a belief system out of it, because it has its limitations.

I see it as a theory. A theory can never be a belief system when one properly understands that every scientific theory is only a provisional approximation of the reality which should relentlessly be questioned. The practice is something else and everyone has more or less a different way of practicing.

[cherimoya_kid]

Why exactly is that a problem? Do you think that our instincts for sweet fruit (or animal fats) are flawed?

Well, instinctos would blame modern fruit for being overly-selected for sweetness, and would say that wild fruit is generally less sweet, and more bitter/sour.  That's not always true, though.  Wild strawberries are quite sweet, as are wild papaya, wild persimmons, and quite a few other wild fruits. Generally, though, there is some truth to that.

[William]

Do they? Is Lugol’s iodine something commonly found in nature? 
Your link leads to a post saying “What exactly is bromine and fluorine” .

Yes and yes. Iodine is found in every cell of a healthy body, certainly was so in paleolithic man.
I mention Lugol's because it works as a nutrient. There are other forms used in medicine and as supplements.

Are you supposing that the instincto theory fails to explain why animals get poisoned with processed and artificial substances?

Animals prefer it instinctively, and there are ~150 years of human consumption that shows that Lugol's is a nutrient and not a poison.
So why do people need to be told ad nauseum that iodine is not a poison, but a nutrient?
Is the instinctive sense of taste so easily deceived?

[eveheart]

I understand the role of iodine and potassium iodide in the body, and I understand that there is a difference in "typical*" dietary vs. supplementary potencies, but for the purpose of understanding iodine's role in instinctive eating, I was wondering where animals that prefer it instinctively get this more-concentrated (Lugol-like) dose? Are we talking about mineral water springs, or what?

*I'm not talking about Japanese or Okinawans here

[Inger]

For Instincto to work and be a healthy diet it would have to base on what grows in the season where you live.
ONLY that way I can agree it might a great theory. Any other way is just an illusion and a lie. Sorry to be harsh but it is a biologic fact we can only consume carbs when we get plenty of sunlight on our skin, without getting hurt in one way or another. The sicker we are the more it will hurt to live in such a mismatch.
There is a reason why fruit grows only in seasons or places with lots of sun and not too cold.

There is a reason to that.

Everything in nature happends for a reason.

As long as Instincto do not see this fact, the theory is flawed to me.

[aLptHW4k4y]

What makes you think that? Do you know many people eating that way and taking into account (as they should) the fact that modern heavily selected fruits can be eaten in too large amounts? Of course, “instincto” cannot work perfectly with intensely selected modern foods. To work perfectly, we should be in our primitive environment, which is lost, and eat only wild foods.

I fail to see why "instincto" could not work with modern "heavily selected" fruits. Your instinctive stop should in theory come depending on various factors, including amount of sugar, fat, and other nutrients. So if you eat modern, more sugary fruits, you will simply eat less (e.g. one modern apple instead of two wild ones), as long as you eat slowly and pay attention to your senses and reactions. You can not eat too much sugar, unless you're either consuming cooked food/dairy (which can skew your senses) or you ignore your instincts.

[Iguana]

Yes, it works anyway but we have to pay more attention to the instinctive stops because they are less marked with foods having been selected to be more easily eaten. That stands true for meats of domesticated animals as well as for cultivated fruits.

Inger, there’s nothing in the instincto theory saying that our diet should not vary according to the season. It actually varies: we spontaneously tend to eat more fat and proteins in winter and more juicy fruits in summer. We typically don’t eat watermelons in winter — when they are not available anyway — but we are very fond of it in the hottest summer days. There are usually no eggs in winter, so we can’t eat them then.   

[Iguana]

Yes and yes. Iodine is found in every cell of a healthy body, certainly was so in paleolithic man.
I mention Lugol's because it works as a nutrient. There are other forms used in medicine and as supplements.
 
Animals prefer it instinctively, and there are ~150 years of human consumption that shows that Lugol's is a nutrient and not a poison.
So why do people need to be told ad nauseum that iodine is not a poison, but a nutrient?
Is the instinctive sense of taste so easily deceived?

Iodine is certainly a nutrient in the correct form and dose while it becomes a poison in overdose. It’s always the same, the instinct can properly regulate the amount of natural (primitive, primal) unprocessed stuff, but is deceived with processed stuff.

As for everything, there’s a huge difference between chemically pure iodine and iodine naturally contained in complex organic molecules of living beings.

[William]

for the purpose of understanding iodine's role in instinctive eating, I was wondering where animals that prefer it instinctively get this more-concentrated (Lugol-like) dose?

AFAIK only from Man. That's what I'm trying to find out. A great mystery to me, which leads to questions; for instance are wild animals including hummingbirds connected to the Akashic record? Are they reading our minds? Is all life one?

Thought experiments result is -> Duh!
So I asked why.

[William]

Iodine is certainly a nutrient in the correct form and dose while it becomes a poison in overdose.

D'accord, but it requires so much volume that nobody has done that.

It’s always the same, the instinct can properly regulate the amount of natural (primitive, primal) unprocessed stuff, but is deceived with processed stuff. As for everything, there’s a huge difference between chemically pure iodine and iodine naturally contained in complex organic molecules of living beings.

The problem is that nobody AFAIK has enabled their immune system with iodine naturally contained in complex organic molecules of living beings.
Only molecular iodine and potassium iodide succeed at enabling the immune system. I know that this does not make sense, but it is what is reported as happening.

[LifeIsExperience]

Simone, how are you doing? Still stick to instinctive eating?