You know Francois, I did read your post... but to me they was addiction.
And later I found out, I think, why. My body was out of balance offering it fruits and stuff that would no way have been available in my environment 24/7, naturally.
Sugar in winter? When was this natural? Is this hard to see?
And here is the issue. Can you now see what I am saying?
I am not saying figs are always bad. I say, the practice to put a fig, a orange, a Brazil nut, a piece of fish.... etc etc under your nose and smell what you want every day of the year, just did not work. Not for me. Because it was not natural from the beginning. Of course not. Check my quote from Alphagruis.
Alphagruis presumes that eating too much would be a selective advantage because food was not always available and our ancestors would have been forced to intermittently fast most of their life! What a hell it must have been!
That some were sometimes forced to fast for a few days is rather certain. But supposing that those who ate more than the optimal ration were advantaged implies that the lack of food would often last during weeks, because a healthy individual won’t die and won’t even get weakened in 15 days or even more without any food, whether he/she ate “more than the optimum” or “just the optimum” previously.
I can’t imagine that they would very often have to fast for longer periods than that, since in an undamaged environment there’s always something to eat, be it at worst only insects, worms, roots or whatever. There are always shellfish at low tide, always fish in the lakes, rivers and seas, always small land animals, and always some carby food in a tropical jungle, especially in the jungles populated by apes, because the environment of animals co-evolves with them. Animals spread the seeds of their favorite foods, so the seeds give birth to trees that provide the fruits that feed the animal who spread the seed of those trees. Same for humans, we make orchards wherever we settle.
Plus our ancestors were highly mobile wanderers and they would have been stupid to remain long in a place where there was momentarily no food.
No, sorry, Inger and Alphagruis, I think more likely that eating too much is disadvantageous in every case and rather compromise the survival ability of an animal rather than improving it. Alphagruis assumption seems totally absurd to me.
I don’t know the causes of your failure with the instincto guidelines, but you can’t ascribe it to the instincto theory itself. I know, it is more easy than to ascribe it to oneself. Anyway, GCB has always emphasized the necessity to eat a minimum of modern fruits and to prefer the wildest ones avaiable. Fruits tend to accelerate the detox, but all the long term instinctos I know have no problem with fruits, in winter as well as in summer.
I am allfor instinctive nutrition if practised with wild local growing foods. Otherwise, a no no for me.
Of course, it’s ideal, we never said the contrary. But there must be in your area enough food to suit your needs. You think seafood is the best for us: I already asked you several times how you can eat “local” seafood when you live in the center of a continent, but never got any answer. It’s all for the best if you’re fully satisfied without fruits during several months. Personally I would have reverted to cooked food long ago if I my raw diet forbids me to eat food coming from somewhere else when there’s no fruit or even no suitable food around.
BTW, here in Algarve there are “locally grown” fruits the whole year, as I already mentioned. Most are grown 50 – 100 km away from my place. I wonder if it satisfies your “local” criterion.
Can’t we stop this endless-loop argument that doesn’t go anywhere? What do you want to get out of this dialogue? What is your desired outcome here?
