"Kirt Nieft" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bruce:
> > The theory that raw food has more of a stop comes from
> > the Instincto/Anopsology belief system.
>
> It comes from my experiences. It is not a theory, but an
> experience. As is yours.

Experience does not follow absolute rules. You would need
to isolate hundreds or thousands of other variables to be
sure your experience really conformed to that idea.

> > It mainly seems
> > to apply to plant-based foods that have natural toxins
> > (nuts, seeds, vegetables).
>
> It occurs with animal foods as well.

Not for me or hundreds of other people I've read online
and talked with. Lean meat has NO stop. In experiments
or real life, people eating mainly leanly meat develop
insatiable hunger. They can eat up to 6 pounds of horse
meat or lean caribou a day, raw or not, without getting
a stop. It seems that people eating vegan or fruitarian
diets develop similar problems. As do people following
all-raw diets in general. That explains why no hunter-
gatherer tribe has ever shown to eat all-raw.

> > If we pre-digest nuts, this
> > stop might vanish along with the toxins. This explains
> > the facts without reference to raw-ness.
>
> Sprouted/soaked nuts have clear stops as well.

We get full or bored with any food eaten exclusively.
So what? Who eats that way? What historical evidence
do we have that humans or animals EVER ate like that?
Many people find they eat more raw meat, eggs, milk,
and honey than they do the heated variety. If I eat
heated honey, by itself on an empty stomach, it soon
burns my throat and changes taste. Wouldn't you call
this a stop? Meanwhile, if I eat "unheated" honey or
comb honey, I can eat 1/4 cup or more.

Most instinctos dismiss lack of stop for raw food or
increased stop with cooked food using on lame excuse
or another: not eating "original food", not isolating
foods or eating in sequence, eating low-quality food.
Typical back-sliding of arm-chair pseudo-scientists.

Regards,
Bruce Kleisner