In most of the world people only ever agonise over IF they will eat – in the developed world people are forever agonising over WHAT they will eat……surely they have better things to do?

Another report on what we should eat!

Logic and common sense, that quality so rarely applied, and particularly not within the realms of mechanistic/material science, would know that absolutes applied to food and what we eat are never going to be right.

For one thing – everyone is different and while a raw food diet may be fine for some it will be very wrong for others. Ditto for vegans, vegetarians, committed carnivores etc. If you enjoy what you eat and you have robust health and are rarely sick and have no ongoing chronic illness then go for it! Clearly it works for you.

But, if what people ate made such a huge difference then India would not now have a population well over a billion and rising with most of the population eating very little and certainly not getting their ‘five food groups’ or their raw foods – they would be dying like flies. They do not.

If there is any consistent factor in health then it is the fact that one must eat or one will die although a few Indian yogis put that theory to the test as well, but beyond that, human beings are generally pretty resilient.

The Inuit managed to survive very well on not much more than blubber and fish! Indians survive and breed ferociously on not much more than rice, cooked of course, and some cooked vegetables with chilli to ‘make the stomach feel full’ and hide the taste of sometimes decaying food and to help the gut digest what is often indigestible. Africans have gotten along with not much more than a gruel of maize (corn) and if they are lucky some boiled greens. Boiled or roasted mice, fur, guts and all are an additional source of protein when the maize is harvested in many parts of Africa.

When Australian soldiers first went to fight in the First World War, the Brits were impressed by their height, health and strength. The Australian diet in comparison to the British was very high in meat and fats, low in grain diversity and often, fruit and vegetables.

The French Paradox arose because the French ate a lot of meat, fats, dairy products including cheese, lots of wine and smoked like trains and yet had lower heart disease and cancer rates than other developed nations. Perhaps most importantly they cared about what they ate, they enjoyed what they ate, they enjoyed preparing what they ate and they used fresh, local and natural ingredients.

So, most of all enjoy what you eat even if it is whale blubber and salted seal. Secondly eat local and eat fresh and eat natural. Beyond that it really does not matter much of a toss.

Having lived for many years in both India and Africa I am bemused at how much agonising goes on in the West over WHAT one eats when in most of the world, no-one ever agonises unless it is over IF they will eat.


There are claims that cooking destroys nutrients and enzymes found in food, and that eating raw, uncooked foods must be better for you. But it’s not that simple and, as Tim Crowe explains, a pure raw-food…

About rosross

Editor, writer, poet.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s