Hi Rex,
since we have a participation of 43% of list members posting I don't worry
too much about lurkers being confused if they join in in the middle of a
lengthy discussion. BTW: I heard that the average participation on mailing
lists like this is 5..10%.
You wrote:
>problem with commercial fruit that is picked green. One of my first
>posts talked about how the mother plant removes or neutralizes toxicity
>(generally astringency) once the seeds are mature. That is the signal,
>in the wild, or orchard, that the fruit should be picked, but others on
>this list have
What about the ability of a harvested fruit to ripen afterwards? Do you
consider this to be useless?
E.g durian, mango, banana, pineapple, orange, sapotilla, avocado and
others are ripening after they have been picked or have dropped from the
mother plant.
Would you always prefer "ripened on the tree" over "harvested and
ripened afterwards" ? Are there exceptions to the rule, i.e. fruits
that never reach a good state on the tree but are eatable after picking
and ripening? Olives come to my mind and perhaps some sorts of avoca-
dos aswell as bananas.
About biophotones:
I still think that a food contains more than you can measure with your
refractometer. I think we can agree to disagree here.
About compost heaps you wrote:
>Mine tend to be about 5 feet high when made, but they "cook" down to 3
>feet.
That looks a bit too high to my instinctive soul. ;-)
Since you speak of "cooking down" - have you ever measured the tempera-
ture inside of your compost heaps? It can be very high, depending on
outside temperature and fermenting activity.
Temperatures over 104F are considered unnatural by instincto theory
since they adulterate proteins and destroy life. There are very few
living beings with a body temperature of more than 104F.
If you are exceeding 104F in your compost heaps you are leaving the
natural paths of fermentation and create a wild mixture of substances
that is totally artificial and would never be produced in the wild.
Simply because MN does not do high heap compost. She prefers flat ones.
What do you think?
Rex:
>itself. "Very good" and "spoil faster" are contradictory in my mind.
My terms were confusing here, sorry. "Very good" meant: suited for
instinctive eating, despite the fact that the foods "spoil faster" than
others also suited for instinctive eating. Orkos sells only foods that
are suited for the instincto practice. They even forbid high heap com-
posts. That's why I asked you about them.
I'm not sure if citrus shouldn't spoil after some weeks. Are you saying
that every citrus that spoils after 10 days is too bad to be put into
your/mine body?
Rex:
>Repeating this unshakable truth means you're joining a very politically
>incorrect crowd.
Well I seem to always have been on the "weirdo" side so won't mind until
being political incorrect becomes a crime subject to punishment. ;-)
Rex:
>Understanding the role of bacteria, mold, and viruses comes easy once
>you see the true relationship between plants and insects.
The story doesn't end at plants. It goes on to animals and includes us
humans too. Graphically said, if a human being is consisting of garbage
it is eaten by viruses and bacteria or at least it has problems with
them.
The conclusion is, that all microbes are there for a good purpose. This
is also known as the "beneficial microbe theory". Do you know it and
its implications for human health?
Rex:
>technology makers. Few are able to resist the Pied Piper of Poison.
>Those that do often economically fail because the people that need
>their production opt for cheapness instead of paying a little more for
>a lot more value.
Yes, and what's the reason for this behavior? In my oppinion the reason
is the bad nutrition most people put into their bodies. If you cook
everything until it is dead and then spice it up, it doesn't matter if
it had a good taste and lots of minerals etc. before cooking. Just add
more spices and the lousy watery tomato will be palatable although you
would never like it in its raw state.
Few people are able to recognize food quality. :-(
So the effect of market and competition together with the unability of
most people to detect good food quality is a continuous worsening of
the quality of our foods. Do you agree?
About instinctive nutrition:
>Quite complicated. And it makes as little sense to me as using a
>nutrition chart that *assumes* any particular fruit or vegetable has a
>certain mineral content. It just ain't so. There can be a
>thousand-fold variation.
Instinctive eating is exactly the opposite of using a nutrition chart.
This chart in a l l of its thousand-fold variations is coded in your
genes already and all you have to do is to use your senses to get back
to this hidden wisdom of your body.
I won't explain instinctive nutrition here because it would be too long.
If you want to know more I must point you either to the archives of this
list (difficult because it's so much) or to books about the subject.
Thomas Billings has done an overview about nutrition philosophies and
included instinctive eating. He might post it again because it's quite
awhile ago since the last post/update.
Rex:
>PS: ask Orkos if they feel like they're able to always get the quality
>they would like to have.
Well, if they don't get the quality that is suited for instinctive
eating then they won't buy it. But I will ask them if they know of the
Brix. I assume their answer will be, that the senses of an educated
instincto are much better than a refractometer.
See - your nose can detect a handful of molecules in one cubic meter
of air. Can your refractometer reach the same sensitivity?
Curious regards,
Stefan
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
|
