Deborah said:
>In terms of animal consumption, it seems there's also the question of
>overpopulation and land use.  Can all five billion of us live in
>Pangaia-like permacultures and have access to instinctive quality
>meat? Should this be a criterion by which to evaluate any diet?  I
>don't know the answers to these questions, but maybe they're worth
>looking into.

These are very important questions that rarely leave my mind. However,
at this point I am willing sacrifice my ideals for whatever diet that
will succeed in balancing out my system. When this is accomplished, I
will see what I can do to make it more ecologically correct. Besides,
after 25 years on a vegetarian and low-consumption life style with no
kids, I reckon I have a little environmental credit in my favor. :-)

>If your diet expands to include RAFs, please share any health changes
>you notice.

It already has but still only ever so little. The taste is at best
neutral and the consistency brings me to tears almost every time. In my
head I am freaking out screaming, "it is an animal - its an animal! ",
and I am on verge of throwing up. To make the transition a little
easier I have tried experimenting with some cooked chicken and fish to
help to get used to the whole idea. When cooked the taste & texture is
a little better and my emotional reaction not quite as strong, but it
is still a huge struggle.
Dietwise, I am bit in no-where land these days still trying to reach my
ideal of a raw version of the zone but in practice, I am eating mostly
raw vegetables with raw dairy and eggs raw in a smoothie. I feel more
balanced and my blood (live blood analysis) has stabilized for the
first time in years. Interestingly, the few times I have had meat, I
have been getting volume stops quicker & faster than with any food I
have ever had. Its funny; the idea of eating animal foods I have
completely come to terms with but when it comes down to even thinking
of having some at my next meal, I feel horror like that a little child
being dragged to the dentist. I certainly have a lot of vegan
deprogramming to go through before I am able to eat the animal foods I
believe I am in need of.

>As I wrote in a private post to Kirt last week, I was trying to think
>of the most emotionally healthy and well-adjusted people I know (few
>though they be), and then, I thought of all the really
>self-disciplined, 100% party line (of whatever ilk) food purists I
>know (there's a few more of them).  None of these two sets intersect!
>Of course, I fall into neither category, though I aspire towards the
>former, and usually end up in the latter...  :-D It would be great to
>see more along these lines

The problem with most radical diets is that the personal discipline and
social isolation that they so often demand of those who try to stick to
them is usually contra-indicative to the development of a balanced
personal & spiritual growth. Many on this list are trying to make the
best of both worlds, but I think the difficulty lies more in a lack of
ability to define ourselves in a positive sense than of trying to unite
or a distance ourselves from these two opposites that so rarely fit
together. Both approaches wear thin with time and do not provide for
much real content or connection. Besides, when the latest gossip has
been exchanged and we have shaken our heads and thrown our hands to the
sky in disbelief over the latest T.C. Fry/ G.C.Burger expose or NFL/
Bob Avery ranting or shared our longings for some integrity and sanity
what is left? Often a deep emptiness because our expectations to each
other have been set too high and cannot fill out the void and longing
for community we feel inside, and we realize that we still are more
part of the problem than we like to admit. When this happens I often
long back to the familiarity of sharing a common cause & enemy from a
safe & uncommitting distance like two neighbors exchanging the latest
gossip over the fence or get real nostalgic about the days when things
were simple and I dreamt of being a vitarian inhaling my meals with
Johnny Lovewisdom in the crisp mountain air of Ecuador.
Back in the real world my experience has been more often than not that
the worse the diet the bigger the heart and more open the mind. I
realize this a not the most positive testimonial but the fact that we
have a gathering place like this where inquiring minds can meet for the
exchange of intelligent & provocative thought remains a blessing in my
book, and I am grateful to everybody who is making it happen.

>Peter and Stefan, you may have hit on something!  The research
>scientists should try the feces of RAW people on these chimps.  If
>the chimps like it, so should we!  After all, our DNA is 99.4% the
>same, right?  A new instincto food!  Of course we can't enjoy it yet,
>being only first generation, but perhaps one day our grandchildren
>will feast on this delicacy...  And maybe they will ponder new
>sophisticated questions, such as should one eat only one's own feces,
>or also that of other instinctos (third generation, of course)?  And
>should digestion/excretion be considered a form of processing?

Luckily, I am getting a stop just at the thought. :-)

>(Peter, don't kick me off the list -- I'm just having a little fun
>here!)

The only time the shit hit the fan and somebody was kicked off the list
for making fun was the Avery death prank and they were short
suspensions at that. And since we are on the subject should any of the
vegans who were booted off the list ever want to get back on, as they
were informed at the time, if they will acknowledge the basic
guidelines for this list which is civil dialogue with a minimum amount
of content, they are welcome back anytime. However, since they regard
any upholding of these principles as censorship, there is probably
little chance of this ever happening.

Ellie said:
>Thank you. I am currently publishing a paper in a psych journal that
>has to do with toxicosis in the brain--very little to do with
>nutrition--but with toxicosis as a result of the suppression of
>emotions. But I am very interested in anything to do with
>neurotransmission. If you have a source of this finding about
>glutathione, I'd be very interested in reading about it. By the way, I
>believe that this toxicosis can interfere with the practice eating
>instinctively, and that it probably affects smell, taste, etc. and
>contributes as well to psychosomatic disease.

Russell L. Blaylock, MD in his book "Excitotoxins - The Taste that
Kills" does mention glutathione a couple several times. What is so
unique about his book is how he goes into great detail on the toxic
effects food additives have on the brain. Page 216: "It is important to
appreciate that many of the toxic effects of excitotoxins occur at a
time when no outward symptoms develop. The child does not become sick
or throw up, or have any behavior that would alarm the parents that
something was wrong. When toxic doses of MSG are given to baby animals
they continue to act in an entirely normal way. But when their brains
are examined microscopically, vital groups of neurons are found to be
permanently destroyed in the hypothalamus. This has been referred to as
a "silent brain lesion." Such silent lesions are frequently seen in
neurology and neurosurgery practices.
It is also important to remember that following MSG ingestion, humans
concentrate glutamate twenty times higher in their blood than do
monkeys and five times higher than mice. Humans may be five times more
vulnerable to MSG toxicity than mice, the most sensitive animal known
to this type of brain injury. Not only do humans concentrate glutamate
to a much greater degree, but it remains at an elevated level in the
blood for much longer periods of time, exposing the unprotected
portions of the brain to very toxic levels.
What makes all of this so disturbing in the case of children is that
the damage done at the time of initial exposure produces no obvious
outward effects. But when the animal (or person) reaches a later stage
of development (adolescence of adulthood) the damage may present itself
as an endocrine disorder or even possibly a learning disorder (violent
episodes, schizophrenia, paranoia). Hundreds of millions of infants and
young children are at great risk and their parents are not even aware
of it."

Ellie said:
>> I am currently publishing a paper in a psych journal that has
>>to do with toxicosis in the brain--very little to do with
>>nutrition--but with toxicosis as a result of the suppression of
>>emotions. [....] By the way, I believe that this toxicosis can
>>interfere with the practice eating instinctively, and that it
>>probably affects smell, taste, etc. and contributes as well to
>>psychosomatic disease.

Pat said:
>You really ought to shout "FIRE" before tossing such incendiary
>material into the middle of such a group as "instincto's"!!! Only fair
>thing to do....

Pat, it may just be me but maybe you should use emoticons as the smiley
:-) a little more liberally -  without your remark could for a
sensitive soul be taken as a somewhat testy and hostile statement.

Stefan said:
>And really, Deborah: are you able to do it? ;-)  Currently I am not
>and because of the toxins I don't think I will do a lot to overcome
>this. Anyway: Have fun with your excretions but watch out for
>reintoxification.

If digestion is effective there should only few nutrients left in the
feces so if one has the attraction to ones own excrements it could be a
sign of malnutrition - or a serious case of anal fixation.:-)

>>Deborah, you mentioned, that Zephyr had his teeth dentally handled
>>after you met him. Can you/Zephyr give an exact listing, which types
>>of material he had in his mouth before the treatment and now? Also
>>how many teeth are treated, how many are intact?

This is a little farfetched to me. I am sure Zephyr went to a
holistically oriented dentist who would only use the most inert
materials possible. The only possible dental connection would be if he
was detoxing large amounts of mercury after having his old fillings
taking out. This could have lowered his immunity a great deal but I
doubt very much this was the case.

>Perhaps we should report more about these positive experiences than
>about the severe failures we watched. But nearly nobody reports about
>his/her good health so proudly. This is considered not to be worth to
>mention. Only if things go worse people start to complain and mention
>it.

I agree. I would very much like to hear some details of your how
instincto has turned your health around.

Karl said:
>And: Most people (including myself) eat some food if it smells
>at least somewhat pleasant, but that is not Instincto. An
>wild animal would not be conceived by preconceptions and old
>habits. It would be lead by its instinct alone, choosing
>only totally pleasant food.

It is pretty easy for animals in the wild to live instinctively as they
unlike humans do not have a dominating neocortex filled with neurotic
ideations and obsessive thought patterns causing their consciousness to
be cut off from their instincts.

Jean-Louis said:
>My opinion is that eating raw + 75 % organic + instinctively + no
>dairy + no wheat lies at 80-90% on the way between Standard Diet and
>Optimal Instinctive Nutrition, so if the health of a person is not at
>80% on the way between his formet state of health and "optimal
>health", the only conclusion I can draw is that a perfect instinctive
>nutrition is not sufficient to provide optimal health.
>I also think that blaming the denaturation of food for "mistakes" and
>its consequences on health is an easy excuse. Most of the persons who
>have a healthful way of life, eat frugally, do not use aggressive
>methods of cooking live long and have a very good health. So, if
>searching for the most sophisticated improvements, the highest quality
>exotic fruits (and spending how much) only provide slight
>improvements, the conclusion would be that, either there is something
>wrong in the protocols of instincto-nutrition that Burger has set up,
>or that instinctive nutrition cannot (or at least, not easily) be
>applied to modern humans living under the unnatural conditions of the
>XXth century.

Challenging words of wisdom that many a diet radical needs to look at.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]