I had the following conversation with my wife yesterday. What matters more (in terms of overall health and well-being): the frequency of eating OR the content of the food we eat?
Obviously BOTH matter, but here is the argument for if you had to either have control over one (frequency of eating) vs. the other (content of the food you eat).
I feel that the content of the food matters more. I think that most (if not all) health issues start with eating the wrong foods: processed, packaged, highly refined, sugar-fied, vegetable oiled, soy laced, foods. If you look at people who eat a traditional diet: healthy fat from animal protein and dairy, vegetables, fruit intake, minimal starch and grains, little sugar, nothing processed, everything organic, these individuals and populations do very well. But when you introduce all of the conveniences that our culture introduces: microwave, pre-packaged, processed, non-organic, etc, the quality of our food is greatly marginalized and depleted. The argument is that we don’t have time to grow and cultivate our own vegetables, that eating organically is too expensive, that we are fearful of raw milk, on and on and on…..yes, lots can be said for actually eating what is good for our bodies.
My wife has another view point: that the frequency of eating is what truly matters. We have lost complete touch with the natural flow of food and energy and have now manipulated ourselves into thinking we HAVE to eat every 2-3 hours in order to be healthy. We don’t follow the the natural flow of eating when we are hungry because we are “caught” in a food system in which we have trained ourselves to be hungry every 2-3 hours. The biggest problem we face is that we now have lost our “adaptability” in terms to how we handle food stress. Food stress is the physiological process by which we process glucose and insulin and since we no longer challenge this system, we have become a victim of it. Let me simplify: take the extreme of fasting–when you fast for over 48-72 hours, you adapt and your body reaches a new baseline in terms of how glucose and insulin are managed. When this occurs, we, ourselves become more adaptable. And it is this adaptation that keeps us strong and healthy (just look at athletes to know that a little stress is good for us). Extremes are difficult places to live for most people, and so fasting all the time won’t work, but fasting sometimes is something we are lacking. And if you look at animals in the wild (who are never overweight or unhealthy, BTW) that is the natural flow of eating. Eat when you are hungry, but don’t eat when you are not. You may go several days without eating, but this stress is a useful adaptation that we need.
Again, both of these issues are very important. In terms of nutrition we are so used to dealing in terms of the WHAT, that oftentimes we forget about the larger process at work. I think that being adaptable is what allows any cell to become stronger and that a little nutritional stress is a good thing.
What do you think? Which is a more difficult challenge for you:
1.) Change the what–rid yourselves of anything process, packaged, convenienced and eat only an organic, traditional diet? OR…
2.) Change how you eat–rewire your brain so that you do not eat every 2-3 hours, but eat only when you are hungry, which sometimes may be 3 days later?
Tags: adaptability, fasting, Nutrition