Nutritional guides (brainstorm)

This is one of those things where I'm thinking out loud. Brainstorming. And trying to set a foundation to build on, here. My topic in this blog is food, more than diet, and how much you should or shouldn't eat of what. That's what we're trying to figure out.

I'm not one of those people, who is impressed with the food pyramid. Was that thing silly or what? And they're still trying to salvage that lobbyist crap. Forget it. Your body chemistry can not be put into such a simplistic box, can it? But in my words, right there, is a magic phrase, that most of us ignore; Body Chemistry!

I like to understand factual information. I like the calorie count, and grams of fat, etc. Those actually do make me think. I don't like the guidelines, 6% or whatever. Without testing me in a lab, how do you know that? It's speculation. Now granted there are truths in statistics, as there are lies in statistics. And you can be quite accurate with such predictions, I just don't like it being mixed into my facts, in a way that really doesn't work. The government declared war on FAT, and then didn't distinguish the good fats from the bad, so I got cynical to all their guidelines.

Back to Body Science and Chemistry. The way I see it, food is good! You can do study after study, and come to the same conclusion. Food does this or that- does it now? This is never the issue, and here's why. The real question is; Your Body did what, being fueled with that? Food doesn't do the job, you do the job, through that thing called chemistry! Food does one thing well, it spoils. Which is why I take issue with salt studies.

We need salt enough to have brain enjoys it enough, to seek it out. Why? I believe that it's to slow spoilage, the oldest use of salt, to begin with. You eat salt, to keep from turning into a giant walking cesspool of bacteria. You need bacteria for digestion, and you also need bacteria control. Every doctor has read that there is no difference between no salt, low salt, and unrestricted diets in survivability studies. Yet, the first thing your doctor does with CHF is tell you to limit salt. (Ok reduce it, but I think only a fool tries to eliminate it). Another part of salt is as a bonding agent. "Sodium Whatever", is found in all kinds of things, because whatever was bonded to it. How do you think your fat cells are any different at storing nutrients? Come on, man? Anyway, my questions are not answered by these guideline numbers.

Back on the science. Sorry you fundamentalist, but evolution is a fact, not a theory, and should even be called a law of nature! Your theology is irrelevant here, and that's an issue that makes many people fighting mad. Do you really think God made bananas yellow to attract humans to eat them? Most things that are bright colored are actually poisonous. So there went the theory of bright red tasty cherrys, a gift from God for both eye and stomach? Don't be so goofy, grow up!

The wise councils of faith leadership, all though the ages, has been concocting dietary does and don'ts, forever. Today, we wisely have divided these streams of thought. It's not just the faithful that should possess the secrets of good life, it's a human right to have safe foods. Why Jews don't eat cheese burgers, has little to do with the science of fats and body chemistry. Or eating fish on Friday, or any of these other things. Pigs are fine when handled properly. Shell fish are fine, when taken at the right times. Etc.

These all started from observational studies, and simple science of deductive reasoning mostly. But today with have refrigeration. Chemistry to control bacteria, and even radiation applied to our foods. Age old wisdom, might not any longer apply. Come on, the Church fought against the world being ROUND like a ball. They thought it was round like a coin! Why? Things fall down, and they had no explanation for that, other than observational wisdom. Things fall down. Today we know now that mass draws itself together, more mass, greater gravity, so balls are a natural shape in the cosmos. Pancakes, not so much!

The second that we mention evolution, them hairs on the back of people necks rise in anger. But facts are that we have been around some 600,000 years. Most of our cousins as a species didn't make this far. Point is that, we have developed a 600,000 year database of chemical reactions. I believe that foods are craved, to balance out nutrients that your body wants. For example, I don't really believe that Cherrys in summer are any better than cherries in winter. But your body enjoys the restoration of something it lost in that time, part of the cycle of the human chemistry. And suddenly cherrys are like the gift of God, that you can't get enough of. And maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. I'll let your Church sort that out, I'd rather deal in provable facts.

My point is, that my nutritional requirements in the mountains might be slightly different than those of my cousin's at the beach. Both because of elevation, temperature, etc. My cycles could be different too, such as needing more fat to fight off cold of winter. There is a lot of variables, that simplistic guides don't take into account. That I don't think we are yet addressing in our science any more than our theology?

One size fits all. Does it?

This has been a long rant to say; What should we be watching away? Fat, Salt, Sugar/Carbs, besides just calories? Should we do a statistical analysis of servings, based on facts we know. For example; Lets use our bacon, once it's right here; We add two strips of cooked bacon, and have served 6 people (in the dish). So statistically we have added 70 calories divided by 6, right? (12 calories, rounded up). But there are factors not accounted for by this. For example; Wheat Gluten, which is a protein that is developed by kneading dough. So what you start with, is not what you end up with in a loaf of bread. So statistical really isn't much more accurate than observation, in this case. Things fall down, and therefore the world is flat!

Calories for those of you who don't know, is a measurement of energy that it takes to consume a food item. And it really is a pretty proven yard stick, even though it doesn't take into account, that everything you eat, has a life span in your system, before it's ejected as poop! Meaning, you don't fully process everything that goes in you. But statistically again, it give you a good yard stick measurement, which helps us to understand that we should be limited to 2000 calories or less per day, to be within a healthy weight ratio.

However, I do believe that athleticism, is a side effect of being healthy. And not the other way around, as so many would have you believe. It's another medical fooler! Novelist Douglas Adams died at the gym. No doubt, that we get benefits from some exercise, unless it kills you. But being a good athlete requires a certain amount of good health to begin with, that you may have always been lacking? Just a thought- not a popular one, but I'm use to that!

The point here is to figure out what our diet is doing to us. So I'm doing my homework on what I eat. And trying to learn a bit more about obesity, and how to control it. There is diet that has always worked without fad, it's counting calories, and limiting them!