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]