Rick,


On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:44:19 -0800, Rick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The point that I was addressing early on was that vegetarianism has,
>IMHO, no base upon which to decide whether it's the ideal diet.  Lance
>and I are both in agreement about meat having played a significant
>role in our evolutionary past.


That meat was eaten in humanity's past, and still is eaten by apparently
most people, does not necessarily mean that it's optimum for everybody to do
so. What's the best criteria for measuring whether or not a given
food/diet/whatever is best for a given individual? The results. Do that
which gets the best results. I personally am very "results-oriented". The
main thing for me is getting the best results, rather than a particular
ideology or belief system. It can be interesting to tinker with ideologies
and to intellectualize and hypothesize, but in the final analysis, the only
thing that matters is the results. And by the way, the theories and the
results don't always mesh. Theory and reality can be two different things.


>As I had mentioned at one point, our genetic origins stem from
>omnivorous creatures.  If we are to debate exactly what the numbers
>are, ultimately I think we're out of luck and, again, as I present
>below, it's really moot.


According to Darwin and his theory of evolution, our genetic origins stem
from frugivorous apes (and yes, they include a small amount of raw
animal-source food as part of their diets). Well, it goes back even farther,
so the theory goes -- back to piles of slime in seawater. ;^) We can only
venture a guess as to what those primitive cellular structures ate, eh?


>I'm of the school of listening to logic.  And logic, while not
>infallible, certainly points us in an empirical direction.  I'll get
>to that in my conclusion.


I know this: the logic does not point to human beings being optimized for an
animal foods-based diet.


>My point is that there is no point.  If we at least accept logically
>that millions of years of dietary choices led to a physiology
>appropriate for an array of primitive diets, then, we can accept that
>everything up until the discovery of food manipulation is appropriate
>for even contemporary Man.  Raw food.


Perhaps now we have some common ground.


>I promised above that I'd get to logic leading to empiricism in my
>conclusion.  If the argument I put forth is any indication, then, in
>my mind, the "only" direction (yes, I'm going out on a limb here)
>appropriate for IDEAL health is one based on what our ancestors, prior
>to food manipulation, have given us.


The most logical conclusion that I can muster is that one should do what one
finds works best for one, if optimum health and well-being is what one wants
(not everyone necessarily wants that, in my observation).


>What label do we have to describe this way of eating?  Instinctive
>Nutrition (Severen Schaefer).


Not everyone who has experimented with "Instincto" would agree that it's the
best way to go. For one thing, it might only be reliable when using only
wild, uncultivated foods -and- when one's instincts are optimized (might
take tons of experience and possibly other factors that will help to
fine-tune the instincts). Again, my rationale and one that serves me quite
well is to do what works best, as determined via consistent empirical
experience, plus a healthy dose of intuition thrown in for good measure. All
theories, ideologies, rationales, and "shoulds" take second place.


>Anyone who has experimented, by the way, with the Instincto way of
>eating, knows full well that the experience of knowing which foods to
>select and when to stop eating is inherent in us.  There are no rules.


There does seem to be a rule. The food should be wild, uncultivated, totally
untampered with in any way. How many people have access to 100% wild, raw,
fresh foods? And for how many people is the practice of instincto 100%
reliable and "fool-proof"?


>For the uninitiated, we have built-in food stops:  Perceived taste
>changes.  Instinctos don't stop when they're full.  It doesn't make
>sense that if your body is telling you that this food no longer tastes
>good (as it did five minutes ago) that you should eat until your belly
>is stuffed.


And then on the other side of that idea is the possibility that one can
easily overeat a given food, simply because one's instincts were deceived,
due to any number of possible reasons.


One last comment, and one that I certainly am not going to argue with you or
anyone else about: Darwin's theory of evolution is just that - a theory. Not
all of us on this list believe in that theory, in whole or in part. I will
say that there exist other theories as to humanity's origins and
"development". Darwinism is not the "be all, end all" of human origins,
optimum human diet, or any other topic relevant to humanity and this planet.

Regards,

Wes