Well, skip this if you don't feel personal experiences belong here or if
you've seen too many alrady (that's the "n" key in my mail editor,
Jean-Louis). But someone did actually inform me he's enjoying these to
some extent (possibly because the person can relate) so as long as I'm
not doing this for myself only (yep, sometimes that can be helpful too),
I'll just keep them coming... :)
Things are looking pretty good on the other side of the mirr... (oops) -
as far as my instinctive eating ventures go (ventures, go: get it?).
A few simple yet puzzling issues have come up along the way for me, and
solving them on my own might be a little less fun than the "group-thing,"
so by all means, do add your few cents (anything more should be send to
the following address: well, okay, email me if you really want it...).
<now, for the usual disclaimer, before I go on...>
Please don't think of my position as one of a dogmatic nature. I am
simply discussing a way of eating which is better for me than any other
way I was subjected to before; in fact, it would be "dogmatic" for me to
do otherwise than to defend such a way of eating (trying *real* hard to
avoid the word "diet" here; can't hold on for much longer... :)
<now, for the fun-part...>
Puzzle#1: do you really think that in today's world there cannot exist
instinctos (as *we* know them) who follow the definition (again, as we
know it) yet don't necessarily realize that their eating habits are
based on following their instincts? In other words, I think that there
are many physically and mentally healthy people around these days, and I
suppose I'm curious whether their success (health-wise) lies in IE.
Again, please don't look at this as my putting down other diets; I am
speaking purely from experience, and at this time, my health standards
happen to go hand-in-hand with my instincts.
Puzzle#2: <note: requires a solution to puzzle#1 before proceeding>
Oh well... some other time then.
Well, but here is a comment in the meantime:
A friend of mine, or rather his eating habits, had me somewhat curious
and puzzled for quite some time (before I started IE). He would
basically eat three meals each day, with very, very little food at each
one; while *I* was packing myself with pounds of baked tomatoes and meat
throughout the day. He had wonderful energy levels and was quite sharp.
Yet, most of what he ate was processed food (packaged cereal,
sandwiches, pizza), though with occasional raw fruits and veggies.
I am starting to see more and more now that the more healthy and "clean"
your body turns, the less you need to put into it. Not only that: even
though you put in less, you get higher quality output. It possibly
doesn't end here either: the more healthy you become, the smaller the
input requirements will become (provided, I suppose) you stay within the
"quality, raw" foods, while the output will increase even further.
Perhaps I am just stating the obvious again, but I am noticing that I can
easily sustain myself (with high energy levels and mental alterness) on
very little raw food these days. And the numbers are going down (or up,
in terms of output quality).
In any case, this does seem like a much more likely solution to man's
food requirements or food-needs, as intended by the initial [nature's]
design; "quality in, quality out" seems to be the motto.
Any of the long-term instinctos here noticed this (or do you just take it
for granted now that others take in pounds and get "grams" out, whereas
you take in grams and get "pounds" out, so to speak).
Jean-Louis: I'm not sure which one should be more annoying: your telling
me that most of what I write is in the archives, or my writing a lot of
what is already in the archives. I am equally unsure which one would be
easier for me: looking up what's already there, or just repeating it
again in my messages. So let's just compromise will ya (your "look into
the archives" remarks are slowly getting to me I guess): let me write
what I want and I'll let you read what you want. Deal?
<now, for the important smiley...> :)
|
