Denis: >>HOwever, I would point out that studies on adaptation >>physiology concur in saying that a small stature is an advantage when >>living in the tropical/equatorial zone (the more skin surface the higher the >>evapo-perspiration...). Jean-Louis Tu: >I have never read about those studies, but the fact that a small stature >is an advantage does not seem obvious to me. Kirt: It is not obvious to me either. If I was as strong and healthy as the traditional Masai were, I would consider it a blessing, dairy or not! That the Masai are so tall as a result of dairy is not an unreasonable hypothesis to me, but whether that is a drawback, even a minor one, is not clear. Tall people are often at an advantage socially, and humans, whatever else they are, are social animals. (I remember mentioning to Melisa that Ombodhi was 6'2"--I think I remember something like that--and she said, "Really? Well, that changes my idea of him all around." Or: look at the personal ads and see how many women list "tall" as a qualifier of what they are looking for in a mate. Or: anthropologically-speaking, physical size is (only) one factor in the ability to scare away a competitor, sexual or otherwise, or even a _predator_...) >And even if a high stature was a drawback in the tropical/equatorial zone, >the Masai example seems to show that the arguments against raw milk may >not be so serious. I know some babies show intolerances to cow's milk, >and there is the story about Burger's infection. Could you share this story with us? >Maybe there are as many >differences between cow's milk and woman's milk as between a cow and a >woman, but we instinctos eat animals that are very different from those >in the original African biotope. Tomatoes, avocadoes and many other fruits >originate from the New World, and are very different from the Old World's >fruits. Interesting and valid points to my ears. I look at it like this: our capacity for taste-changes should operate reasonably well with any thing in the "original molecular set" (defined as prefire) including ocean water and clay. Mammalian milk is clearly in this set, regardless of whether our ancestors were dairy farming (they _weren't_). A deep sea fish like a large tuna (or even a small cod) might be included in your list of foods our ancestors weren't eating, but our taste buds seem quite able to tell us useful things about whether we should eat it or not. Surely, our taste is not fool-proof, but it is still the major tool we have in raw food selection...Now, whether, raw yogurt or butter or cream will exhibit a useful taste-change might be an open question--one for personal experimentation, not for decree by nutritional experts, GC Burger, or anyone else. >Experience also shows that instinct does not always work. A friend of mine, >although she likes pollen and used to absorb huge quantities of it, now has >an acute stomach pain each time she eats even a tiny portion. Of course, >one could object that pollen is not an "original" food, but I also >personally know cases of allergy to seafood and to strawberries. These are great examples, Jean-Louis Tu. They are the kind of stuff so often glubbed over when instincto is touted as the perfect dietary. Clearly, instincto practice will evolve over time, but only if it takes into account such experiences. It is all too easy to say, "well, then they are not using their 'instinct' properly like I do" or "it is just a detox reaction", but such retorts can become a useless catch-all, especially if the details of such ideas are not offered as part of the feedback. Cheers, Kirt