Interesting that people don't seem to like bananas. Really ripe brown spotted bananas are the best fruit for me. Other fruits with a creamy/fluffy type texture such as durian are also good. Very sweet sugary tasting fruits make me feel sick and fruits where the skin is eaten make me terribly bloated.

the problem with this idea isn't the concept that we are so polluted that are instincts are polluted (which is of course true and a problem) but the more basic, that for most modern people, we have to purchase food from outside sources, and probably not on a meal to meal basis. So there is absolutely no way the mind is never involved in terms of choosing what to eat and how much.

I've tried that 'your weight will automatically balance itself' stuff for years. and seen very few or any actually achieve a normal build doing so on any methodoloy. This is a thread in almost every raw food camp, and yet very few people have proved to maintain or create builds that completely defy the calorie paradigm, only ones that stretch it.

actual numerical weight is effected by cellular gunk, so examples of people's expanse, even on fasts is not completely impossible, but in most cases, the body is calling for a rest from eating perhaps, but the fasting is not healthful for their individual at that point. Which seems to be the whole rational behind eating animal fat other than our biological requirements, but to buffer these toxins.

as for excluding food sources, I've heard of some extremes in instinctive nutrition that will not eat at all from domesticated animals, and therefore flying all their food in from outer sources. how is it possible to know what they instinctively want for Tuesday? if the body only requires a certain amount of protein to function optimally, than clearly any excess of that in paleo times was just thrown away to the pursuit of petunias or whatever. The problem as mention is that these 'instincts' and selectivity go above and beyond what an animal actually uses to decide what to eat and becomes equally theoretically and of the mind.

the problem with this idea isn't the concept that we are so polluted that are instincts are polluted (which is of course true and a problem) but the more basic, that for most modern people, we have to purchase food from outside sources, and probably not on a meal to meal basis. So there is absolutely no way the mind is never involved in terms of choosing what to eat and how much.

It doesn’t matter if our mind is somehow involved at the moment of purchase and reaching for our purse: we know roughly what we’re gonna eat preferably in the following days, and probably animals also know more or less as well. But the mind should be under the command of our alimentary instinct rather than the opposite. We can store a lot of food at home: different meats, liver, eggs, shellfish, fish and vegetables in the fridge, as well as different nuts, dates and fruits in a cool place. Where is the problem ? When we want to eat, still we can choose instinctively (what smells best and what tastes best at the moment) between the available stuff. And if we don’t eat something immediately, we can most of the time store for latter.

I've tried that 'your weight will automatically balance itself' stuff for years. and seen very few or any actually achieve a normal build doing so on any methodoloy. This is a thread in almost every raw food camp, and yet very few people have proved to maintain or create builds that completely defy the calorie paradigm, only ones that stretch it.

We aren’t defying the calorie paradigm. The point is, most people eat more in calories than necessary and the excess is either stored in their body or it goes through without being assimilated. It’s also a matter of difference between what comes in and what goes out. It’s a fact that people initially loose weight (up to 1 kg daily for the really obese) if eating larges amounts of raw food after years of cooked diet, whereas those eating less don’t loose much weight or don’t loose weight at all. It seems that eating a lot spurs the elimination process. The skinny ones generally take on weight till they get in the norm, as long as there’s enough % of RAF in their diet (unfortunately, many are still influenced by vegetarian, or worse vegan ideology).

as for excluding food sources, I've heard of some extremes in instinctive nutrition that will not eat at all from domesticated animals, and therefore flying all their food in from outer sources. how is it possible to know what they instinctively want for Tuesday? if the body only requires a certain amount of protein to function optimally, than clearly any excess of that in paleo times was just thrown away to the pursuit of petunias or whatever. The problem as mention is that these 'instincts' and selectivity go above and beyond what an animal actually uses to decide what to eat and becomes equally theoretically and of the mind.

I’ve never heard of instinctos excluding meat from domesticated animals, but I do not know every one of them ! As I said above, a lot of different foods can be stored at home, so that say on Tuesday, you can choose between what is in your fridge, kitchen, basement, garden or surroundings. Once you’re in “cruise” mode, after a year or so, you don’t need so much choice and you could be satisfied with what is easily available around, especially in summer or in the tropics.  

I'd be highly skeptical of my instincts unless I was actually living in my natural environment away from all the distractions of modern life.

The experience shows that our alimentary instinct works well enough as long as the kind of raw, unprocessed foodstuff we need is available. It’s impressive with babies; it works just as well with cats and other pets. It is sufficient to avoid any food cooked, mixed, spiced, processed, as well as dairy and wheat.

I disagree. A lot of the time, our instincts are not truly natural - whereas wild animals seem to instinctively find the right kind of nutrition for most of the time.

As for weight-gain, raw foods seem to constantly cause weight-loss, with the sole exception of raw dairy(and possibly) raw fermented  grains. I do wonder if those RPDers who mention they are underweight, are actually at their normal weight, but won't admit it, due to bodybuilding concerns.

I disagree. A lot of the time, our instincts are not truly natural - whereas wild animals seem to instinctively find the right kind of nutrition for most of the time.

Of course over the long spectrum of their lives, wild animals instinctively choose their proper foods, but not if there is a shift in their environment or a drastic artificial change in circumstance or most importantly a choice in food supply. A Bear with the faculty to call Honey Pacifica would eat more honey than it needs in its diet and as long as it was readily available without effort. It doesn't stop eating fish with the idea that it can go to the store and pick more up if it goes bad.

as for weight-loss this sounds totally ridiculous in contrast to your argument - unless I perceived it wrong - that paleo men had far greater functional strength than Olympic lifters. wild animals are able to have huge muscular builds eating their biologically appropriate diet, whether plants or animals. They often consume a very specific and often large amount of food to maintain this equilibrium. Unless one is to believe humans are from outer space with other requirements, which is possible, they too have these requirements.

I don't see this as anythign other than the same logic proposed by vegans, that 'normal' SWD eaters are 'overweight'. Of course on a tissue level this has truth, but theoretically according to the proposed models, that once one become pure enough and emptied of these toxins, their bodys become full and healthy, often proposed regardless of intake. I spouted this garbage for years and have yet to see one concrete example of a person as majestic as an animal in this respect. So either this pursuit of cleanliness is largely impossible, OR the entire idea is just wrong, including the ideas of what constitute our natural diet. Clearly people are less than convinced here about the possibility of such eating only plants, so it makes the argument for eating RAF fairly poor if the outcome is essentially the same in respect to this issue anyway. Just because some might as they become healthier absorb more food and require less than someone unwell, does not change the fact that others might need that extra food to maintain healthy weight, no matter how pure their instincts become, because there is never a situation where those instincts manifest as per above.

as for the aesthetic element, I guess the photos of modern HG's and Native Americans, and Greek statues are all we have to go by, even though they all ate cooked foods. I think this comes down to again, looking at other animals and their weights/builds/and densities and if so that this theory is again largely mistaken. I know with myself my numerical weight I've heard is way lower than to the eye, however even still if I was to play a role in a film, like a fit thin Average Joe or something, I would probably have to gain 15 lbs. Of course again that is comparing it to 'toxic' people, but if one is truly healthy, than weight gain, like it is for expecting mothers, should be an effortless endeavor on our true natural diet. Its fine to be thin, as long as they are truly healthy enough to gain on natural raw foods and not hiding behind some notion that can't be possibly accurate for clean or ancient humans re: raw foods and weight-loss. Again this brings up basic suspicious about the contents and quantity in the diet being adequate for building OR cleansing. Only in health, what people CHOOSE to be at that point is their own business.