Cherish the Choice, Sanctify the Supper
The Anxiety to Act - the Fear of the Iroquois
In preface, I will say that my posts (and Woof-Log) are not prepped to advise vegans and vegetarians, nor are meant to lure such people into bison cook-outs over prairie bonfires (i dream of them). Nor have I yet examined the ethics behind not eating things that move (faster) versus things that don't. Or things that feel (we think) more pain, and those that feel less.
I do feel free to say this, however. ANYONE could change the way i eat now, depending on what came out of their mouth, and how the application of that wisdom (not necessarily their own) countered or complemented my own dining experiences. I will also say this: I think that's the only healthy, self-charitable attitude to have.
This mode of conviction I strive for - a belief with foundations broad enough to allow me to ALTER the non-essential elements of that belief. I think nutrition and eating are, in the bigger scheme of things, fairly petty concerns (i've modified my own diet by degree for years). They must be altered, even as life must be altered. Yet how cannily do comestion's misapprehended nuances mirror the same nuances we encounter in real life. Simplicity is gain, but only following experience's painful complexities.
To point out a general trend among people who conclusively rule out other diets (or beliefs) based on individual, relative, or esoteric experience: They've rarely tried more than a couple of things (in unvaried combination). They have not experimented with enough variously weighted synthesizing (or non-compatible) factors in order to isolate out the causes of their bliss or mal-reactions. I hear many people point-blank refuse to eat raw vegetables because this 'upsets their digestion' (well, lifting weights makes you sore...) Eating raw vegetables, eating meat, eating oatmeal (where, how often, how much, why, what type, with what) can only lead us to unknowables if we do not attempt to formulate any beliefs in the matter, and do not remain flexible in our experimentation. We must not, in helpless defeat, fall under the delusion that each lifestyle and each diet is relative -- all equally worthy and equally healthy. Activate your will. Employ your freedom. Learn, and live.
Do not settle on freewill/freedom at the expense of that which freewill/freedom strives for: Wellbeing beyond our own devices and knowledge. Such wellbeing may well be beyond our ability - that's no reason to discount the truth of such wellbeing. We must strive to ADAPT to what will lead to greater optimum health, find the willingness to so adapt, and alter diet proportion and content in such a way which allows us to adapt. In this case, ancient humans, forboding like the Iroquois, are not our enemies. They are our very selves which we have misread, misjudged, and perversely subverted. We must not, as G. K. Chesteron warns for modern minds, be "forced towards the future by a certain sense of fatigue, not unmixed with terror, with which [we] regard the past." [What Is Wrong with the World ]
A similar esotericism, one with no focus on potentially achievable IDEALS, influences people's reactions to beliefs AND foods of all sorts. We are afraid of death, but we do not know how to die. We are afraid to kill, but we do it daily. We fear disease, but we have lost the art of ease. We mistake our existential journey for pain and pleasure. But we still cannot muster the courage to eat.
To draw your attentions back to meat: Regardless of one's ethics about eating meat, and barring unfavourable medical maladaptations, very few peoples worldwide have any innate biological aversions to meat ingestion and utilization. The opposite pattern holds: It is the one food the human body most readily recognizes and uses. Sushi passes from lips to anus with much greater ease than peanut butter. Sushi and peanut butter TOGETHER, however, synthesize about as well as Nihilism and Christianity. Strangely, solemnly, sacrificially, it seems that by some past mischance or misdeed, our 'herbivorous planet' grew into a carnivore - and we still reel under the weight of that legacy. Another solemnity seizes me - that life must die in order for life to live. That is the one lesson, no matter what we eat, which fewest learn. It is the most important thing to learn about food.
More mundanely, people will NOT feel good eating meat if (1) it is combined with too many starches, particularly hybrid or refined ones (2) it is a small element in a diet in which the bulk of the calories come from carbohydrates or from a fairly high dose of them (40-80%) (and this regardless of what kind of carbohydrates they are) (3) if raw veggs do not complement their diet (4) if their digestive systems and metabolisms have been given no chance to adapt to the change; create new enzymes and different proportions of enzymes, etc. (though animal dairy is not basic or ancient to human health, the body can learn to make lactase to deal with unruly lactose. I advise mother's milk.) (5) if blood sugar regulation and insulin production have been given no time to re-normalize (6) if they do not feel at peace about the IDEA of eating meat, or feel psychological loathing during the process.
To persuade or dissuade, that is no art without a contents for persuasion or dissuasion.
-Paleo-Nate
8 comments:
The last sentence of my comment to your previous entry was vague and led to a little misunderstanding (or maybe it didn't). In my mind of course it made sense and referred back to my previous sentences perfectly. :) I meant that no fad diet, no 'important nutritionist' will get me to change the bulk of what I eat on their (the fad diet, the nutritionist) popularity alone. We are told by those supposedly more well-informed than us what we should be eating. No trans fats! More fiber! I say we each have to experiment and see what works best for us. Not to say that I won't change what I eat in the future, but I need to listen to what my body says before I make those changes.
You seem hung up on the meat issue. Why a preoccupation with those who choose to forego meat (for whatever reason)? I couldn't understand the popularity of the Atkins diet, but to each his own.
the Atkins diet is not a health diet - it is an effective weight-loss regime which unwisely understresses fat intake while overemphasizing protein consumption - none of all this in the context of a whole foods diet. But it's not a new thing at all - its basic premises have been experimented with throughout the last century, and the reference points have always been hunter-gatherer or agro-pastoral peoples whose main calories stemmed from meat and whose unique vitality was respectively decimated by sugar, flour, and alcohol addiction. Atkins is one among many similar (and wiser) low-carb feeds: Eades and Eades, Kwasniewski, etc. It was/is popular (along with thousands of other diet types which all derive from the same principles) because it works. You can eat all the calories you need for full energy and still experience gradual weight loss to reach what is healthful for your body type. Lower insulin production associated with lower carb consumption means you will lose weight in varying degrees on any diet sufficiently low in carbohydrates. I don't really give a hoot about weight loss myself - it's nothing i've ever pursued in my own life or the life of my friends, dates or acquaintances - but it does help explain the popularity.
I think it pays, as with any subject, to distinguish some realities from the ebb and flow of manias. I think most people are fatigued with nutrition and just give up on it - they assume its a completely relativistic pursuit. It's very difficult and rare (though not impossible or unfounded) for vegetarians to cut their vital carb intake w/o reverting to eating meat. Where else will the calories one needs come from when a vegetarian cuts carb intake down to 20-30%? Without loads of dairy, eggs, nuts, avocados and coconuts (in itself, not a highly desireable fate), the vegetarian who attempts a somewhat lower carb diet is going to be doomed to frustration, energy loss, and plain bewilderment about what foods to turn to. I don't even know how to begin to speak to the vegans....
Perhaps at a later date I can explain why dealing with the world of animals and meat has been an eye-opening, sacramental, and self-reflective experience for me - to the point that i no longer see a huge difference btw plant death and animal death.
My email covered what I had to say about this, but I want to add that I don't agree that adult vegetarian and vegan diets are unhealthy or contribute (anymore than a meat-eater's diet) to the rise of diseases. I'd throw out links to sources that support this, but I'm sure you can find that info on your own.
I'll stop my silly bickering now and get back to work!
Transcript from a program about the Atkins diet that aired on the BBC in 2004. I found the last third especially interesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml
i am not an Atkins diet advocate - just so everybody's clear.
i am also not an advocate of 'high protein' diets, which deviate from the macronutritional proportions reasonably stated by Jasniewski.
I'm aware that you aren't a fan of the Atkins diet. I just found it interesting that the studies covered in the program came to the conclusion that Atkins worked (i.e. people lost weight) because foods high in protein suppress appetite, not for the low carb reasons you listed above.
Another example of misreading form for substance: high-protein diets (as long as there's enough fat too) NATURALLY suppress the appetite (after one has eaten a bit) for MORE PROTEIN/FAT. One still may experience strong carb hunger for weeks, even months, until the body adapts off of higher carb levels. appetite 'suppression' is a sadly typical criticism coming out of a culture which has never learned to curb its own appetite, particularly where bread and cereal and chips are concerned. Those latter foods are appetite STIMULATORS (for more of the same), even after the eater is full.
Post a Comment