> From: Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>

> I wonder how many instinctos are there on this list. They make themselves
> rather quiet.

You seem not to have read the archives (there have been a few wild
discussions). In fact, I think that instinctos constitute a minority
of the raw food community in the US (most are vegetarians). In France,
it is different (more than 20000 current or ex-instinctos).

> I find the idea more and more appealing, to be very honest.  I also think
> instinctive eating is a rather simplistic solution to one's dietery problems
> (though it isn't a diet).  Of course, as it should be, since
> it is based on one's inner abilities to select foods rather than on
> external factors (of which there are just so many that things can very
> easily become more complicated than one would want).

You will find out by yourself that it is not a easy than it might seem.
However, discovering the real taste and smell of foods, and discovering
RAF were for me two very positive things.

> Well, it's known that animals use their instincts to eat; should there be
> any doubt as to whether humans have actually managed to retain their
> instincts through the years, to what degree they are still functional
> and effective today, and whether they can be relied on completely to
> find the right foods?  This is a vague issue, I realize.

Given the fact that extensive use of cooking is rather recent in the
evolutionary scale, I think that instinct is still efficient, except that
our sense of smell is less acute than that of animals.

A problem I cannot solve is that of foods that humans have been in contact
with only recently (avocados, high sea fish). We know that selected fruits
mislead the instinct, so why would our instinct be adapted to those?
Here are a few (not very convincing) arguments:
 *They have clear instinctive stops. That doesn't mean the stops are
_effective_ but it seems so, since eating those foods don't cause health
problems (result of many people's experience).
 *Our ancestors were put in contact with the ancestors of those foods.
There has been some evolution since then, but not so much. Spectacular
changes in external appearance can result from a tiny genetic change.
 *Instinct is efficient with foods we have never been in contact with.
Maybe our taste reacts to the composition (makes a sort of nutritional
analysis). Of course, some proteins (or parts of them) may be unknown
to us but even if a protein appeared to be undigestible, our immune
system is here to get rid of the "invaders"
 *Artificial selection is based on taste, productivity (and others),
whereas natural selection is based on survival. The results are thus
completely different!


Anyway, nature has found other strategies to deal with foods:
 *neophobia: an animal is extremely wary of new foods and only tastes
a little bit the first time. Moreover, a new food tastes/smells less
good than it would normally do if it was a known one.
 *When a rat recognizes a food (raw or cooked/processed) that proved
toxic in the past, it defecates on it, so that no other members of
the herd eats that food. The mere fact that that behavior exists
proves that instinct is not enough, not 100% efficient.

However, my (and that of others) shows that, when intelligently used,
our instinct is really a powerful tool, that works satisfactorily
with selected fruits/veggies/animals (I repeat: intelligently used,
which is not so easy, you will find out why after some practice).

> I wonder, would women make better instinctos than men?

Is it another anti-feminist cliche? Men and women needed in the past
to select their food to survive.

> Wouldn't the number of the so-called "instinctos" be much greater
> nowadays than many think?  I mean, there have to be millions of people
> who do just that - eat whatever they like, and eat it raw.  I'm sure that
> a good many of the less civilized cultures would qualify; do eskimos,
> for instance?

There are extremely few 100% raw cultures now. Eskimos used to eat
mostly raw (although they sometimes boiled their food).

>
> Why would instinctos want to limit the number of times they eat in a day?
> A lot of what I read talked about 2-3 meals per day.  Why increase
> the sizes of these fewer meals rather than eat little and frequently?
> There should be no rules, yet peole recommend a 2-3 meal plan.


That's because of the perversion of overeating. The danger of having
many meals is to eat continuously, even when no food is needed, and
to be full all the time.

Also, scheduling meals is more convenient when you have a professional
or student life...

Best,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]