Kirt:

>As I value your contributions to this list greatly, JL, I am very curious
>as to how you see the sorry instincto track record. If it is so valid, why
>do not more people thrive on it? Is it just questionable raw material, so
>to speak?


Let's consider the follwing assertion: "As long as a food is pleasant, it
is useful to the body. Eating instinctively is the best way to enhance
immunity; there is an equation pleasure = health".

That principle is so simple, almost unquestionable. What would be the
purpose of taste, smell and other instinctive stop mechanisms, if not to
help us make dietary choices? There is no doubt that that postulate of
instincto theory is at least 95% valid for wild animals.

But after having second thoughts, I realize now there is a huge gap
between theory and practice, due to the fact that we are not animals
in the wild.

1) Artificially selected fruits are abnormally high in sugar. Thus, there
is a kind of contradiction between "eat the most pleasant food" and
"except sweet fruits". Of coursem it is easy to understand neo-cortically
that danger, but trying to develop one's instinct, to psy attention to
the degree of pleasure *and* having at the same time to rescale the
foods that actually are the most pleasant is very disturbing.

2) Some wild fruits contain a high amount of sugar too, but under natural
conditions we couldn't find so many, all year long. I suspect that
they would lead to overeating too. Two days ago, I purchased some Zahidi
dates (among others), from Orkos: they are supposed to be undenatured,
and not as selected as the Deglet Noor. They tasted a bit like caramel
candies I sometimes used to eat as a kid ("bonbons Krema"!). There did
was an instinctive stop, which came sooner than with commercial dates,
but only after nearly one pound, which I consider excessive (and expensive!
8$ on dates at a sigle meal).

3) About the instinctive stop: it is also very disturbing to learn the
signs of instinctive stop (taste or texture change, signs of repletion...)
and not to eat until the instinctive stop, especially when we are supposed
to eat the most attractive food and we have enough stocks to eat ad
libitum. But it is unnatural to have many palatable foods at the same
place, and just having to extend the arm to pick a different fruit,
instead of having to walk a few miles in the jungle in search of a
tree that hasn't been depleted of its ripe fruits by orangutans.

4) About tolerances and addiction: it seems to be an important point
that Burger doesn't treat in his book, except tolerance to tobacco,
cooked food and cow's milk. But the most recent trends of instincto seem
to be more concerned about tolerances to original foods, and meat in
particular. How to handle that problem? What is tolerance? Is it a
natural phenomenon, and does it contradict instincto theory?
By definition, being tolerant to a food means that the instinctive stops
have been (partially or totally) suppressed. Tolerances develop when the
same food is too regularly eaten. The difference between becoming tolerant
and removing a blockage to a particular food is that in the latter case,
mechaisms of instinctive stop work correctly.
I guess that animals do have temporary tolerances: it is a natural,
and maybe necessary phenomenon, since when food becomes scarce, escept
for one kind of food, not becoming tolerant to that food would cause
useless suffering, and maybe undernutrition followed by death, since that
food would become so unattractive that it could not be eaten at all. But
while temporary tolerances are natural, permanent ones are not, and only
humans can preserve food for months, eat bananas or dates every day,
import fruits from the fiv continents. For animals, when the season is
over, or wen all the ripe fruits in the few square miles they live have
been eaten, they have to wait for a few months, so that they cannot
remain addicted in the long run.
Nevertheless, it is not easy to determine whether we have addictions or
not. You say, Kirt, that you have clear instinctive stops with RAF, so
you may not be addicted to meat. But are you addicted to fat? And what
about the fact that you don't get many burning-like stops with fruits?
I too get less burning-like taste changes with (cold extracted organic)
honey. Am I developing a tolerance to honey? Are cows grass-addicts?
I am confused about that subject.


So, for all these reasons, the equation pleasure = health is not true, and
even on the contrary in some cases, which s very troublesome: sometimes
folowing and sometimes going to the opposite direction of what our
instinct would tell us... I think these reasons are at the origin of
the main "mistakes" that instinctos commonly make: too much sweet fruits,
too much RAF, pigging oneself with fruits and then with nuts...

But I will go further, and say that these are not "mistakes", but
unavoidable consequences of the instincto dogma, except for a few
enlightened persons; and I am sure there would remain a few frustrations,
even for those who practice correctly, for the reasons I mentioned above.

The theory may be beautiful, but it is useless if we can't practice.
It is too easy to say "instincto-nutrition  is the optimal diet if it is
practiced correctly". Every system can work. For instance, Urwana seems
a good example of successful fruitarianism. But if we measure the efficiency
of a diet by the percentage of persons who carry it successfully, instincto
is a failure, and fruitarianism is worse.

Of course, G.C. Burger has set up a few protocols to avoid major "mistakes":
no breakfast (to limit daily calorie intake), no fruits at dinner, only
one protein each day. But on the one hand, that may not be enough, and on
the other hand, following these principles demands some efforts. Maybe
it is not the best solution, and maybe everyone has to search his own
protocols that work best for himself. But one thing is certain: we cannot
expect total pleasure and no frustrations. It is time for instinctos to
grow up on that aspect too!


*************************************************************************

>As for whether Zephyr's experience should deter any RAFing: it should at
>least make them think twice, maybe three times. It makes me eschew
>carnivores on principle, which I _would've_ eaten according to pleasure
>before. (As for omnivores, like raw-fed pigs, I wonder if I'd be able to
>resist. Like swordfish, which is reportedly among the most polluted
>billfish, I might well eat pig, especially if I raised it myself.) BUT, my
>days of recommending RAF to anyone are over. How can it be otherwise, JL?

My opinions about meat are:

1) There are no convincing arguments for a purely vegan diet (except
moral reasons). This subject was widely discussed on the former veg-raw
list with Wardski, Raw Avery, NFL/"N 2nd thoughts", Kirt and others, so
I won't come back to that, except for a few points that remained
unclear:
   *Paleo-humans used to eat 30-35% meat. That doesn't mean such a high
amount would be beneficial to us. First, we are sedentary, we heat our
houses, etc. Second, maybe they ate so much meat because they didn't
find anyting else to eat, like Eskimos. Since there is an adaptation,
it means that with 30-35% meat, an active man would stay reasonably healthy
until 50 years old, but less meat would probably be better.
   *The fact that humans have been eating meat for at least 3 million years
doesn't prove that meat is necessary (so, vegans have a good point here),
but that meat can be eaten instinctively (there is a reliable taste
change). So, there is a possibility that some persons do not need meat,
but for these persons, meat would always taste bad.
   *Generally speaking, instinct is probably not efficient wit diseases that
occur at an old age, since 50 years were probably enough to breed,
accumulate and teach one's experience. So, the pertinence of eating a
food to cure such diseases doesn't necessarily show up in the taste. Of
course, if meat (or nuts or anything else) really tastes wonderful, it
should obviously be eaten, but until further scientific evidence,
eating meat only when really attractive, or eating it each time it
only tastes better than other proteins, are two possible philosophies
that each of us can choose freely.

2) The fear of parasites may not be a good reason for not eating meat.
As I said in an ealier post, water can contain dangerous parasites too,
and instinctive quality *domesticated* (I forgot to mention that point)
animals do not harbor Trichinella, or at least very rarely. Of course,
domesticated animals have other inconvenients too, like selected
fruits, but if we handle them with caution, there are no reasons to
worry, at least on the parasite issue.

3) Maybe we are not well adapted to trichinosis, because in the paleolithic,
humans ate very litte predator meat, and the incidence of trich. among
wild animals was low. Indeed, the parasite didn't exist in Europe
before 1800 (it was brought from Asia by the gray rat), and developed
because of insufficient sanitary conditions in farms. But we may worry
whether other still unknown effects of eatin raw park exist: perhaps
parasites is not the only issue.


**************************************************************************

>Burger's wife dies of cancer in, what, her
>fifties, sixties? He almost dies from malaria. At least one woman does die
>of malaria. Several other instinctos get seriously ill with malaria. Zephyr
>nearly dies of trich and who-knows-what.

You are right to ask what the main reasons of disease are. The easiest
excuse is to say they didn't practice correctly. Maybe true, maybe not,
but suppose they did.

1) Extra reasons: since our list is about raw food, it seems natural to us
to be nutrition-centered, but IMO, psychology, way of life and proper
exercising may e also, if not more important that nutrition. As for the
record, I will mention:
   *Koichi Tohei, founder of the Ki society, tells in one of his books
that some adepts gather on Jan, 1st and meditate for 5 minutes in the
cold water of a river. The consequence is that they do not catch colds
during the year (but from my experience with cold showers, it doesn't seem
100% efficient against colds/flus!)
   *Tai Chi i supposed to be a health practice. Yang Jwing Ming (51
years old, well-known expert) says that practicing Tai Chi cured his
stomach ailment and relieved his sinus problems. Nevertheless, each time
he comes in Paris (twice a year), I notice his health is not perfect
(he has colds, injuries, not always efficient digestion...)
Of course, we would say that Tai Chi practitioners are missing the
nutrition part. Bu conversely, which parts are we missing here?
Anyway, for Mrs. Burger, given her relationships with her husband,
psychology may well be the main reason for her fatal disease.

2) We were not exposed to the Plasmodium Falciparum during childhood,
and we did not receive antibodies from our mother. In the same way,
Northern Europeans often have dysentery when they travel to tropical
countries. Of course, I am not saying that the million children who
die each year in Africa would have survived if they had eaten instinctively
jackfruits and Medjool dates. Malaria is probably a dangerous disease
is any circumstance, and the weakest have to die anyway, so that
those who have a strong immune system remain alive. But a proper
nutrition would certainly help (and reducing malnourishment in the
first place).

3) Nature is not perfect, as proved by the low average lifespan during
prehistory. Even if it were due to a high infant mortality, that
contradicts Burger's assumption that with instincto, ome doesn't need
obstetrics, children have no diseases, and infections do not happen.



 ****** Conclusion ******

Should we eat meat or not?

I think instincto has at least the merit to ease reluctance in eating meat.
I certainly wouldn't hav dared trying raw pork if other persons hadn't
made the experiment earlier.

We have to be aware of the risk of becoming addicted; but the problem
of addiction/tolerance exists for every food, not only meat. Of course,
even if there are no cerious scientific arguments against instinctive
quality farm animals, but since the problem of meat is controversial
(and the excess of proteins too), it would be a safe attitude to eat
meat only when really attractive.

Fish may be safer, as Denis pointed out. Genes cn remain in our pool for
millions of years. Nevertheless, all the present genes are not expressed.
For instance, hens' ancestors had teeth, but the genes to build a
dentition, even though they are still present, are not expressed.

Grains and nuts thus become more important because they can "replace" meat
most of the time. The trouble is that I tend to eat enormous quantitites
of nuts each time I test them, even if they are of instinctive quality.
So remain grains, which are not addictive and, by providing glucids
and proteins, help prevent eating too much fruits and RAF. I still do not
really understand why some persons at Montrame were disturbed when I
told them I eat grains every day. Maybe doing so is not in the current
mainstream practice of instincto, but so far it works for me.

Nevertheless, I still encourage anyone to experiment with RAF, at least
during a short period (except of course those who are concerned about
morality), to see if it makes a difference. Everyone is a particular case,
so being warned of the potential dangers is a good thing, but
experimenting oneself is better.


Best wishes,
--
Jean-Louis Tu
[log in to unmask]