Peter said:
>>As Denis pointed out last week predators in the wild more often than
>>not are infested with parasites and are best not eaten raw.
Roy said:
>(1) Parasites didn't exist in paleolithic times.
Maybe, as somebody suggested, the parasites that live in carnivores are
a special challenge for instinctos or maybe humans have not created
anti-bodies due to lack of exposure to them. I do agree with Kirt,
though, that instincto theory is in need of some serious revision if
instinctive eaters are only immune to certain kinds of parasites.
However, my naive? belief is that an immune system functioning
optimally will not be susceptible to parasitic infestations of any
kind.
>I remember reading somewhere that trichinosis-infested pork actually
>tastes and smells better than the normal kind. So much for door #2.
I believe this is taken from Louis Gittleman's book on parasites "Guess
What Came to Dinner." My guess is that she is talking about cooked
pork, and that when eaten raw, pork will taste off if contaminated.
I have not read the book cover to cover as she is too much like the
"parasite woman" Hulda Clark who IMO suffers from an unhealthy
fixacation on the whole issue by wanting to sterilize everything in
sight. However, skimming through the book I came across the following
on p. 111 which supports my alkalinity theory:
"Soy products leave an alkaline residue in the system, and it has been
my experience that in parasite diet therapy, the system needs to be
more acidic on a cellular level. An overly alkaline condition in the
gastrointestinal tract provides a favorable environment for protozoans
and worms."
She goes on: " Heavy intake of raw fruit and vegetables should be
greatly curtailed, and cold or iced foods and drinks should be avoided.
These foods cause the intestines to contract, thereby holding in toxins
rather than releasing them. For the therapeutic parasite control diet,
cook most fruits and vegetables so to soothe the intestinal tract. Raw
vegetable and fruit juices are not suggested at this time."
On pages 122-123: "Since most parasites enter the body orally, one of
the body's defenses against them is our stomach acid. Very few
pathogenic microorganisms can survive the hydrochloric acid in a
healthy stomach. However, numerous factors lead to a lack of
hydrochloric acid in the body:
- An overgrowth of Candida albicans can damage the cells that produce
hydrochloric acid. A course of antibiotics can often result in an
overgrowth of Candida albicans, leaving one of our body's best
defenses against parasites severely weakened.
- Recent research has shown that people with type A blood have a
genetic predisposition to a condition known as achlorhydria, whereby
the body does not produce enough hydrochloric acid.
- Lead, one of the more toxic heavy metals widely distributed in our
environment, binds the hydrochloric acid in our stomachs, making it
unavailable for digestion."
Like Donna Gates, David Webster & Hanna Kroeger she also stresses the
importance of a diet moderate in carbohydrates with an adequate protein
consumption along with a balanced intestinal flora to build a strong
immune system that effectively can fight off parasitic infections.
>You were one of the key figures, and I understand that you were
>instrumental in helping select the correct avenue of treatment.
I mainly just gave moral support.
Jean-Louis said;
>Concerning trichinosis and others problems with eating other mammals,
>the official argument is that mammals' consumption is too recent in
>the evolution, so we may not be well adapted to it. I don't understand
>why they refuse to apply that argument to viruses and parasites. For
>instance, why not say that AIDS, or any recent virus strain, or a
>parasite, is dangerous because humans have *not yet* adapted to it?
Great argument! I believe that the fundamental theory of instincto is
solid but that it in its practice could do with a lot of improvement.
Parasites are all over the place - some we will have adapted better to
than others - and some will be "meaner" than others but in a strong and
well functioned body, I believe that they all will be "washed out"
never getting a chance of gaining foothold.
>3)Burger seems to believe that the normal lifespan of humans is 969
>years, but evidence shows that the average lifespan during the
>Paleolithic was 35, that no tribe in the world has a high % of
>centenarians (BTW, the age of Vilcabambans is often largely
>overrated), and that trepanations were performed during prehistory
>(which proves humans needed surgical operations).
Is this 969 year figure part of the instincto connection to the Essene
movement that you have alluded to several times?
>>1)The very fact that natural *selection* occurs means that a
>>sufficient number of deaths have to eliminate the less adapted;
Astute observation! So if instincto really is man's true original diet
then maybe some of its followers must prepare themselves to be
sarificed so the human gene pool can be kept strong - that will make it
the only diet that succeeds even when lethal. ;-)
>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.
Or ignored. If I have an addictive need for a certain substance in a
food like fat, sugar or certain amino acids, I will tend to override
the stop signals I am getting.
>Tolerances develop when the same food is too regularly eaten.
Excellent! Eating must never become routine and should always be a new
& exciting experience. A sedentary life style, poor psychological &
spiritual habits and a constant supply of out of season foods all blunt
our senses and instincts and contribute to the phenomenon of tolerance.
Restraint and true hunger to keep the taste buds sharpened are concepts
far from instincto's hedonistic infatuation with the pleasure principle
& banquet type feasting with exotic foods flown in by Orko from all
over the world, so it is no surprise if food tolerance and addictions
are preventing instinctive eating from coming into its own right.
>the difference between becoming tolerant and removing a blockage to a
>particular food is that in the latter case, mechanisms of instinctive
>stop work correctly.
The difference presumably also being the intensity of the taste
experience.
>I guess that animals do have temporary tolerances: it is a natural,
>and maybe necessary phenomenon, since when food becomes scarce,
>escaped 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 five 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.
These are important distinctions which make it clear how we have
forgotten that we are part of something much bigger than ourselves and
how our instincts, if allowed to operate unrestricted when isolated
from their original context, will turn into tolerances that will sow
the ground for addictions & neurotic cravings.
>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?
Unless he is fooling himself, if he is getting clear taste stops how
could he be addicted?
>And what about the fact that you don't get many burning-like stops
>with fruits?
To me that indicates the possibility of addiction.
Kirt said:
>But why? Even if we nailed down the true paleolithic diet precisely we
>would be left with the question: If our ancestors were attracted to
>more, say, sweet fruit and fatty RAF than they could obtain then would
>they be better off with a bit more of it. (And as I mentioned, new
>research puts the average animal food consumption of paleohumans at
>50+%!).
I wonder if there is total consensus on this figure among
anthropologists.
>Further, cooking may have been a part of the human diet for tens of
>thousands of years. To what degree the cooking was beneficial is
>arguable, but is too often dismissed by rawists.
Which is maybe why you are getting definite taste stops with cooked
veggies.
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
