Denis:
>Comparative studies of protein content
>of spontaneous varieties of cereals  and modern varieties of the same  show
>the geatest variability for  wheat (triticum). I've extracted the following
>from my files :
>                        Lipids %   Fibers %     Proteins %
>
>Spontaneous Engrain     2.64            2.33    22.83
>Modern Wheat            1.62            2.78    14.50
>This in turn represents more an indication than a proof.

What if we compare the stats for achaic vs modern corn, avos, citrus,
bananas,  even the Morn Thon and Chanee durian vs the more wild varieties
found all over south east Asia? Or how about wild celery, leafy veggies,
etc.? I have no intention of defending wheat, but there are plenty of foods
which have been subject to intense modification besides wheat, no?

JL:
>>>2) That our ancestors didn't eat X doesn't mean we shouldn't eat X. Our
>>>genetic material is more flexible than we might think: our brain was
>>>certainly not designed to prove theorems in mathematics.

Kirt:
>>As most people are proof of! ;) I love your comments and participation!!!
>>You truly seem to have an open, non-dogmatic mind.

Denis:
>Sorry to interrupt your honeymoon, guys,

That's OK. You're not interrupting it. ;)

>It seems to me that if we do not take it for granted that our  adaptability
>to  process  new  foodstuffs  is limited within the strict confines of some
>sound organic principles, the whole foundations  of instincto just  fall
>apart.

Yes, they do. Four or five years ago I would've been trumpeting along with
you about the "foundations of instincto". But too many questions beg that
foundation, especially if it is to be touted as a Final Answer. Instincto
is an _incredibly_ interesting Path and I do squarely believe that any
successful regime will of necessity rub elbows with it's practices and
principles, but too often it's practictioners and champions ignore its
shortcomings, both practical and theoretical.

>Of course the fact that our ancestors didn't eat X doesn't mean that
>we shouldn't eat X, but we don't have   any other basis than our
>evolutionary hypothesis to start with. So let's first study the case of
>instinctictive paleolithic nutrition, and we'll see later on for the rest of
>the diet.

Yes, I feel this is where I'm at: I have studied and practiced IN and now I
am seeing the rest. I don't know anything for sure. The instincto track
record is pretty poor in reality. Most people fail to stick with it, and
those that do are not immune to all sorts of "imbalances" including death
from parasites and degenerative disease, just like other rawists. It seems
they don't suffer from deficiencies like many other rawists, but otherwise
the mentality is all too often similar.

>Concerning dairy products, I forgot to mention that the main drive  behind
>the invasion of new milk-based  products coming on the market these last ten
>years is the fact that marketing studies have showed that the taste of pure
>milk is negatively perceived by a vast majority of children. And the milk
>industries are desperate to find any recipe which can make it more palatable
>for the kids  (by far the major consumers of dairy products, if we are to
>exclude  butter and cheese naturally )

As I have posted, I have no attraction to any dairy, except butter and that
attraction fell away quite quickly. This is more than enough to "prove" to
me that dairy is not for me. If I turn around and next week keifer is as
tasty to me as it is to Melisa, I will certainly "explore" it.

While I have no problem with the anecdotes of instinctos vs dairy, I
neither reject the few exmaples of instinctos reveling in dairy. Why do the
hard core instinctos close their ears to the possibility than dairy may
have something to offer rawists on occassion?

Cheers,
Kirt