Everyone is counting - and no one knows why, or even what they are counting. It is rather inspiring that a unit of portion that tops every ingredient label is a virtual whole that has positioned itself as a suitable for expressing how much food we should eat. Its origin is somewhat obscure as is the conjecture why we use it. The belief was first defined by French Professor Nicolas Clement in 1824 as a unit of heat. Apparently, the Calorie as a nutritional unit was brought to America by a man named Wilbur Atwater in 1887 and soon after popularized by author Lulu Hunt Peters in her bestseller, Diet and Health, with the Key to the Calories, Peters outlined 100-Calorie portions of many foodstuffs and first advocated counting fat as a way to manage weight. The whole of food energy in a particular food can be measured by burning food in a machine, called a "bomb calorimeter," then the whole of ash and heat indicates how much "energy" was released and therefore how much "energy" was in the food. The idea caught on, and citizen began counting fat - that is, calculating exactly how many fat were consumed when eating particular foods, or "burned" when inspiring in dissimilar activities.
In the meantime we have been belief and have suitable as normative portion that an adult person needs about 2,500 fat - or rather kcal (kilo-Calories) per day. The common belief is that if we sacrifice the fat intake - we'll lose weight. In our post-modern digital age, this counting formula is an uncontested convenience - with only one problem: as everyone who was trying to lose weight will attest: it's not working! Surely, as countless studies have proven, reduced caloric intake leads to longer life expectancy. But we don't need caloric numbers, just common sense to not eat when we are not hungry.
Nose Hair Clipper
Well, why then do we rely obsessively on Calories? Because it makes money, big money! Just think how the Calorie is commercially exploited: low fat, no fat, low sugar, no-sugar, diet sodas, NutraSweet, Equal, Splenda, Neotame, Ace-K, Saccharin and a plethora of other products are victorious in the store on low or zero-calories pitches. However, despite the overuse and abuse - denigrating the life source food to fat has not worked, as is evident from obesity statistics. Counting fat as normative numbers is far easier than authentically understanding the complex effects food has on our bodies and weight balance. Food activates many hormones in the body for discrete functions: some store fat; others publish sugar; others help to build muscles. Studies show consistently that diets based on the same whole of calories, but dissimilar proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrates, succeed in incomparable amounts of weight loss. Nevertheless, the fat myth is exploited by the industry, and consumers continue to count numbers that never match up, rather than to reflect on how food is designed for filling the heart with joy!
Clearly, food is not calories! Yes, anyone we fill our stomachs with to preempt that nasty feeling of having to eat is quantifiable and the unit of determination is the Calorie; but some fat make us sluggish and sleepy, and others invigorate our minds and make us energetic and creative. Some fat create a sense of plenty and bring to mind the problems we are dealing with - while others feather our heart and fill it with gratitude.
Deep down in our hearts, we know that the same given whole of fat - embodied in meals - can create a wide range of dissimilar effects. We may also be aware that those meals that leave us fatigued after eating are development us sick and grumpy over time, while with the others we may enjoy sustained vitality as we find ourselves to be in a pleasant mood.
We have been led astray to believe in myths, and failed to accurate the fat paradigm - why? Because fat fuel a billion dollar industry, so why abandon the hen that lays the golden eggs? When the fat concepts were first introduced a century ago, the human knowledge base was quite dissimilar than today. It was well known that condition is considered at the dinner table and that we should sit down and eat slowly, chewing the food well and eat a balanced diet. Food was not pasteurized or irradiated; it was preserved by fermentation and other natural methods. citizen knew what and how to eat salutary from what they learned from their parents over generations. There was no formula to objectively portion the nutritional value of food, nor was there any need for it before the mass industrialization that brought us processed convenience food.
Meanwhile, despite the caloric counting obsession, we are getting sicker and fatter to the brink of bankrupting the healthcare system. Doesn't this imply that the nourishment by fat is a futile task? So what is the delusion? When we crunch caloric numbers we are focused on very processed food with most considerable nutrients removed and synthetic substances added; natural food can do without caloric nourishment labels, as it did so since Adam and Eve. Moreover, the numbers in labeled foods are arbitrary at best, trying to comply with regulatory standards, which were politically influenced in the first place. Then we should be aware that we authentically don't know much about the actual condition ramification of any set of numbers, let alone the accumulation of a collection of label values. For example, if we cut out the fat because we want to lower caloric intake, we are unable to suck up the fat-soluble nutrients and to suck up the food well, and instead of losing weight, we may in fact gain weight - this beside the fact that the food has lost its appeal to and tastes bland. In addition, we have to think that the labels refer to what is in the package, but not what comes to the table, which could be an entirely dissimilar food, altered by cooking. Cooked food is a digestive challenge anyway, because the heat in cooking destroys the enzymes that were in that food in the natural state for the purpose of development it digestible.
When we eat raw food like salad, fruits and nuts, we suck up these foods easily, but what about cooked, roasted, grilled food? Nature engineered these predicted aromas dissipating from heated food only, so that it activates the saliva, which releases digestive enzymes by chewing. In fact, chewing saturates the food with enzymes that change starches into maltose, so digestion begins right in the mouth. Thus, scents emanating from cooking and baking are by no means a coincidence; rather, it is truly inspiring organize to keep us healthy, even when we are eating less than optimally. Here is an additional one convincing conjecture to avoid processed fast food that does not smell conducive to make us salivating - it is essentially an accumulation of dead calories. Eating too fast without moistening the food properly means that un-predigested food reaches the small intestine and taxes the pancreas to yield all the enzymes to turn starches into sugar.
The human species was designed to eat solid food in mouth-right portions and churn it prior to swallowing. That is how we differ from the feeding habits of sharks and snakes. It seems also that God wanted us to eat moderately and mindfully, so that our digestion can work optimally and the body can suck up all the nutrients embedded in the food, to fill our hearts with joy.
It is inspiring to seek how all things from the option of food to the presentation, the environment, and the circumstances under which we eat are all very interdependent. The more the food is cooked to be authentically soft and easy to swallow, the more it is conducive to be eaten without permissible chewing. Fast food is commonly served in high-turnover premises, where all things is designed for rapid turnaround, so the patrons instinctively comply by eating authentically fast, commonly taking the next bite before swallowing the first one. It follows that digestion malfunctions under such stressful circumstances, and nutrients - should there be any - cannot be derived, and consequently overweight citizen are a common sight at fast food establishments, kids inclusive.
Then there is the just about forgotten aspect of thoughts and emotions. Most citizen are not taught that they can exert salutary control over their thoughts or emotions, and are instead controlled by them. What is the link between digestion and stress? The gastrointestinal tract is a huge body of nervous tissue that lines the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, and colon. It makes sense, then, that emotions play a huge role in digestive health. Actually, emotions sway digestion already in the mouth; the salivary glands are authentically exposed to derangement, while fear and great sorrow results in a dry mouth, so that we have mystery swallowing. Morbid processes sway the tongue, which has a profound succeed on the digestion of starchy food. In turn, positive, pleasurable emotions encourage salivary digestion - and long-term condition and vitality!
Why do we see Tv sets in sports bars and fast food restaurants, but not in upscale dining places? Is there a association between the rampant obesity in America and the way fat are ingested? Does the failing condition of Americans and their dependency on designate drugs have anyone to do with the way meals are taken? The Japanese, who outlive the Americans by many years, ordinarily stay salutary to old age and are of general weight, eat meals consisting of many very small portions, where the garnish and presentation matters as much as the food itself. Even "bento's", packaged foods to be eaten on trains or at the office, are nicely wrapped like birthday presents. No one is counting calories. The French created the "nouvelle cuisine" in the early 1970s. It has come to be an immensely favorite dining belief in Europe and features a wide collection of fresh food, served in many small portions, each one arranged like a piece of art. It engages all the senses, like the Japanese food, and all things about it is to fill the hearts with joy before it fills the stomachs. Counting fat is thoroughly redundant, as the meals are spread out over a long time, giving the stomach has plenty of time to signal the brain when it is full, so that overeating is a non-issue. In America we refer to the "French paradox", what is our inability to understand that the French can eat fatty food without getting fat, for the way they eat - not what they eat.
Could it be that diverting our attention from fat to the actual meaning of food - can help restore a salutary America?
References:
Confusion About fat Is Nothing New, Professor Finds., Science Daily; Nov. 20, 2006.
"In Foodture We Trust, nourishment for Body and Soul in Times of Troubles"; Heinz R. Gisel; Xulon Press; March 2009. Isbn 978-1607912651
"Enzymes of Human Saliva; I. The Determination, Distribution, and Origin Of Whole Saliva Enzymes"; Howard H. Chauncey, Fabian Lionetti, Richard A. Winer, And Vincent F. Lisanti; Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 33(3): 321-334, 1954
Related Reading: http://www.vitalityconcepts.com/
Why fat Don't Count - They Can't Make You Slim, But indeed Sick
