In a message dated 97-04-20 14:29:00 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Nieft / Secola)
writes:

<< great differences between the wild paleolithic foods we evolved consuming
 and the foods available to us today; the great individual variation in
 relish, tolerance, and utility of even high quality raw foods and even more
 so with "borderline raw foods" such raw dairy, fermentated concoctions,
 "live" supplements, etc.; the generations of denatured food consumption of
 our ancestors and the resultant, albeit incomppletel, natural selection of
 our genetics; and especially the doule-edged sword of neo-cortical
 intervetion--without which we would be unable to repress our attraction to
 denatured foods (whose denaturation is also directly attributable to our
 neo-cortex), but also without which we would be unable to secure much
 quality raw foods in modern circumstances.

 It is understandable that we want to know/define the edge of the set of
 useful instincto raw foods as distinct from un-useful denatured foods, and
 know it _before_hand_. But this expectation may be unrealistic. Instincto
 purists have decided to "err on the side of conservativism" and restrict
 most every form of denaturing. While this is admirable intellectually, it
 probably contributes in large part to the failure of most people to eat
 pure instincto for a lifetime. But any alternative seems frought with the
 possiblity of severe problems (UNLESS the "eat till the stop" proposition
 is tossed out!) >>

MY COMMENT:  Yup sorta seems we humans have already created an environment
impossible for us to live healthfully in.  NOW, let's have some answers,
fellow questers-toward-health!!

Bo78b