Anyone who dared to escape from the beaten path confronts traditional power sooner or later with a fundamental question: "What should I eat to stay fit and healthy?" And there is no doubt that this question deserves to be taken seriously. Regardless of the reply would be given that intellectually, the only real legitimate response can be provided only by the genetic heritage of each person and by its biochemical state.
Behind the profusion of raw food dieters more or less that are nowadays, there is always an authoritative person with a more or less scientific theory that determines which foods you should eat, when you have to eat and How should you prepare.
unfortunately no diet is based on the use of the sense of smell to choose those foods raw (unprocessed) that best fit the needs of each. Yet, who better than our own body would know what to eat?
The teachings of the various philosophies of food have all but ruled out a concept fundamental and elementary namely that of a fully functioning human instinct food. Each Diet exists, whether raw and cooked based on the concept of "theory, diagnosis, prescription." They do not rely on the wisdom of the genetic body, but rather take advantage of the analytical capacity of the mind to select the food. By adopting this approach, if the theories are incomplete (and because of the complexity of the phenomena involved in the body they always are) that the requirements will be wrong and the longer-term consequences could be disastrous. Like animals that live a life naturally, instinctively choosing their own food, we also should have the ability to select the foods that we instinctively guarantee an optimal nutritional balance. Problems arise when people develop eating habits that do not include the instinctual behavior and the supply of food as "originating". And these are precisely the issues that most dieticians desperately trying to correct. To compensate for the lack of intelligence genetic accumulated hundreds of millions of years, nutritionists seek credibility elsewhere. And the main sources are the intellectual theories developed by individuals who claim to be authoritative in this field. Although the phenomenon of apparent authority is a commonplace in our society, I do not think this should justify the fact that we must accept the "rules" as regards the biological functioning of our own body.
Let's look at some of these "rules" common in the raw food. For example, "theories" like the ideal daily caloric needs, food or the acid / alkaline, or that of the Standard Paleolithic Diet, resulted in a series of "requirements" ranging from "eat all the bananas you can (and a little 'more), the "Clean up your body of toxins with three vegetable juices a day," until "Take care of cancer with a daily meal of raw meat." These are examples of the method, theory, diagnosis, prescription "so prevalent in medicine and dietetics. They are the legacy of the world of cooked food, a world where the instinct for food does not work. On the contrary, eating in accord with their sense of smell and taste allows your body to diagnose their biochemical status, and the appropriate prescription is determined by your level of pleasure in eating, not a perfect solution imposed from outside but that emerges from within, and the beauty is that you do not need theory. No one can tell me what is better that I eat for lunch today, simply because nobody knows. Even if I decide for myself, with my nose without having tested an assortment of raw and unprocessed food strictly, would make a decision intellectual based on what I think is probably necessary for my body and this knowledge is by nature always incomplete, simply because our neo-cortex is not designed to deal with the food requirements of our body. So what should be done as the first? Just ask her body to make decisions that food for himself, instead of asking the right brain, or even worse, the brain of someone else.
0 comments:
Post a Comment