jean-claude:
>I would  remind us that we have no clue about what is in a living food ,
>.all what we know is what is left after analyse (whitch require destruction
>of
>the original organisation of molecules.)

This quite an overstatement. We have way more than a "clue" what is in a
living food. You yourself have been extremely interested in various
micro-level components of foods.

>The main difference that i see between a paleo diet and a modern one is that
>the former exclude extracting nutrients from their context.

Probably the main difference is the exclusion of certain agricultural foods
in the paleo diet. Cooking (denaturing to you) is part of hunter-gatherer
diets in every known culture. Choosing certain parts of whole foods and not
other parts is done by many (most? all?) animals. Granted this is not the
extraction that has happened with industrial food processing techniques,
but simply avoiding extractions is not the definition of paleo.

>Even if  you could do that it doesnt change anything about the metabolites
>unused or uneliminated stored in the fatty tissues . What we call toxins ,
>foreign molecules ( pesticides and other chemicals ... The pigs didn't want
>in the 1st place , i doubt humans can do anybetter than storing it in their
>fat also. A wild boar is unable with a wild diet to become as fat as a pig
>but raised with denatured food they succed to do so, ( not so much because
>they don't have so much genetic history making then prone to obesity.)

People here in Hawaii consider it folly to raise and feed a young wild boar
which has been trapped--they just don't gain weight or grow fast enough to
make it worthwhile, regardless of what they are fed.

>yes i know! i live on an other planet.! just getting impatient for radical
>changes. It takes a while to realise the extent of the insanity of what we
>are doing. Any small realisation is good. But somebody have to strech the
>limits of what is "acceptable ".

And if everyone became instincto on your terms tomorrow, then what? The
world would be saved? You would feel less alienated? Less superior to
insanity?

>If i could influence peoples to take
>charge of their own well being before they collapse i will feel usefull.

So you are looking for a sense of personal usefulness? I can never
understand why some people care so much about the other fellow's diet. Why
is it not enough that you eat "perfectly"--why must you save the next
fellow from insanity with your theory?

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]