Some Final (Brief) Thoughts on the Great Health Debate--Listen Inward, Plants, Keep Pleasures Simple, Get Outside! And Questions

I was getting all ready to make a bunch of tables and charts showing which experts on the Great Health Debate said what, who agreed with whom on what, what the overall numbers might suggest. But I have a billion other things to do today, my computer's memory is maxed out and internet connection falteringly slow, and I paid attention to Sean Croxton and Mike Adams in the wrap-up talk on Sunday night, when they said that the major problem they both faced was too much computer time and not enough outside time! I also concluded that detailed person-by-person final analysis and number-crunching on frequency of recommendations would be missing the point of the Debate itself, the dizzying array of different presentations and worldviews as to what works for health.

Instead, then, I offer something more in keeping with the time available to me today and also more in keeping with the spirit of the Debate, I think. It can be summed up in the title to this post, and here are a few more thoughts.

Look Inward
No two experts offered completely identical world views; all experts believed that what they do works. Since I'm celebrating this blog's anniversary, it seems an appropriate moment to link to a post I wrote over a year ago now, on Pyrrhonian Skepticism and its relationship to diet. This school of philosophy observed that there are conflicting phenomena and opinions about everything and advocated suspending judgment to reach the goal of absence of perturbation. This array of different interpretations of different claimed phenomena seems a perfect example of that.

Plants
It seems obvious that eating more plants is beneficial, that eating a diet based on plants is healthful and ecologically sound. Even the proponents of meat-eating or of low-carbohydrate diets recommend eating plenty of vegetables.

Keep Pleasures Simple (not Refined)
This is one of the more important ones to me. You'll remember that I was uneasy about Dr Young's and Dr Goldhamer's rebukes against pleasure, and that I then observed that for me, 'overstimulating' foods are not pleasurable. I've given that some more thought, and compared notes with my husband, who can eat a whole plate of brownies at a sitting and find it very pleasurable, and realized that I do understand what they are saying, agree with them, in fact, and that it comes down to a matter of definition of 'pleasure.' Very concentrated foods, especially very sweet/salty/oily foods (or foods laced with 'excitotoxins'), produce a physiologically overstimulating response that can lead to compulsion around that food--and for sound evolutionary reasons. These are the foods that are most refined, farthest removed from 'ancestral foods,' least familiar (evolutionarily speaking) to our organisms, and most associated with obesity, heart disease and other 'diseases of civilization.' They tend to increase appetite and weight-set-point, especially if the additional stress of guilt and compulsion surround them.

This isn't to say that one shouldn't enjoy one's food. Food can be--should be--pleasurable, but keep the pleasures simple. Note to self: this includes my current yen for almond and peppermint extract and other intense flavors...

Get Outside!
It's essential to health...

and there is so much magnificence...

I seem to be overcoming my own lack of inclination to get outside these past few days and am looking forward to going for a good hike soon if it doesn't snow too hard. I do think that feeling guilty/obligated to get outside, like I was feeling, is counterproductive, though, as once again, pleasure and delight is part of why it's good for us!

A Few Questions
Who gets to be an 'expert?' Sally Fallon made the important distinction between primary researchers (in the lab) and secondary researchers (reading the data, comparing, number-crunching)--and doctors in clinical practice fall somewhere in between, or partake in both. Are the conclusions of someone who has focused in narrowly and knows certain aspects of a particular field completely intimately more valuable than those of someone who may not be as minutely, specifically trained but who is looking at a much larger picture? To complicate the question further, the 'primary' researchers are often funded or otherwise have an agenda, and we know that you can prove anything with research by setting up the study correctly (which is why it was striking that Colin Campbell mentioned in his 'bonus' talk that he hadn't expected to find correlations between animal protein and childhood cancer in the Philippines). Secondary researchers can also have axes to grind, but generally they may stand a better chance of impartiality. People who have had 'road-to-Damascus'-type conversion experiences in their health transformation may often be great experts in their own bodies, and may be inspiring simply for that reason, that they really have discovered what works for them. Often, however, they may wind up less open to accepting that what works for them may not work for everyone.

What research is relevant? In the very first talk, Drs Mercola and Cousens agreed that they keep an eye on research only for 'trends' and do not set enormous store by individual studies--for the abovementioned reasons in part--preferring to rely on their own findings in clinical practice. This was a very striking statement, especially on the very first night, and lent some skepticism to some of the glib citing of research statistics on later nights. For those of us in pursuit of knowledge, it seemed like a good reminder to pay attention to individual studies but to withhold absolute judgment based on them. Any further advice on how to answer this question, of what research deserves attention, is something for which I'd be most grateful.

I will share some odd thoughts over the next while about how my personal thinking has been affected by this Debate, but this is my final 'objective' post about what was offered. So I'll come back and add on if I think of more that needs to be included, and would be grateful for any comments on what else needs to be covered.

much love.