Believe me, it is not easy. I mean, talking about things that are good for us, and things that are bad for us. It’s even more difficult to know what is good or bad for us. But let’s be truthful: how many of us resist the temptation to declare that something is good or bad for us? Even after my 30 years of education and experience, I still find it funny to feel how nice it is, what a sense of salvation, to say something is one way or the other. When we do, all our doubts suddenly disappear! For a moment, it seems we’ve touched on an absolute, illuminating eternal truth.
As a consultant, personal trainer, and nutritionist, I’m asked dozens of times per day: “is it good or bad for you?” When the situation allows it, I sometimes respond: “For who?!”. I admit, I know I’m not being particularly nice when I do. But by giving such a seemingly unfriendly answer, I give a message that I think is important: Very few things in the world can be said to be, in an absolute sense, good or bad for us. Yet when asking this question, we are seeking knowledge to suddenly enlighten us, to empower us (over others, nature or God), and to fight our anxieties. Admitting that there is no one definitive answer to these questions is not easy. Accepting the consequences of this is especially difficult. How can one be sure of the rightness of one’s choices? How must we judge what is good and what is evil? How do we get to a point where we can say we have nothing to reproach ourselves for? As you can see, these simple statements evoke another thousand reflections. I have to remind myself here of my premise, and stick to my set boundaries. So I will limit my discussion to the issues of wellness and fitness. Everything is relative, as Einstein said (maybe). Making our interpretations relative enables us to extend our judgments. Moreover, a wise person is never without doubts (I think). A piece of rotten meat, which would quite rightly be rejected by any human and a number of animals too, is a source of nourishment for life and a wide variety of bacteria, insects, and larvae. Only when the protein structures in the meat begin breaking down are those living things able to assimilate the nutrients. Rotten meat is therefore neither good nor bad, it simply suits some species and not others. With the power of homeostasis (an extremely complex network of physiological mechanisms that control and balance each other), living beings on this planet are very adaptable. Of course, poison can kill, and we could really say that poisons are bad for us, but in what doses? Equal doses for everyone? And do all substances classified as toxic substances have the same effect on all people? Of course not! We know that many substances are used in therapy, for example, at doses that could be considered toxic. So are these good or bad? But I don’t want to talk about poisons. The physiological components that are reactive to stress may be stronger in some than others. So, for example let’s assume that my ability to digest and metabolize fat is normal. If I eat a large amount of food containing a lot of fat, maybe saturated fat (lard, bacon, sausages etc..), something will change within my organism, and it will alter the condition of the liver, certain qualities of the blood, the activity of the lymphatic system, as well as the structure of certain hormones. Depending on my physiological capabilities, the failure will take several hours or several days. During that time my body will work to restore the values altered to the condition that is normal for me, and if it is healthy, it will succeed well. After a reasonable period of time it is highly likely, if everything works as it should, that everything goes back to ‘normal’. I emphasize this crucial point, that this will happen after a reasonable period of time, not only after my own physiologies have returned to their previous state, but when everything works as it should, and the body as a whole has forgotten about the excess to which it was submitted. When this happens, I can binge on saturated fat again, without it being more or less harmful than the first time. However, if I do this during the recovery phase, i.e. when the effects of that first binge have not yet been rebalanced, the effect of the new stimulus will be on an altered physiology, and the result will be a new imbalance, perhaps greater than the previous one. If the size and nature of such an imbalance is maintained within certain parameters, this crisis will gradually be overcome. If it is not, it can alter the physiology in a more complex way, leaving its mark, and something in the body will have changed. I am greatly simplifying the issue, but the idea I want to express is that the tiring effect of an external action depends not only on the quality (a difficult food for my body, a virus, an upset of some kind …) but also the condition of the person and their history, both recent and remote. Who can prove that damage will be done if a person eats a pound of lard? And damage in what sense? Physiologies will certainly be altered, but can this can be described as “damage”? I don’t think so. Unless there is a specific sensitivity or allergy to a certain class of substances, or even a certainty in my mind that the food will ruin my organism (the power of the mind …)! What we can say with certainty is that damage is caused by constantly and repeatedly submitting an organism to substances that it can’t balance, without being given the time and opportunity. A “difficult” external stimulus, that normally would not create significant problems, could also be at work on a physiology that is fatigued for other reasons, and is therefore not able to perform according to its usual ability. Take the immune system for example, an extremely elaborate and multi-level set of systems and subsystems that are coordinated to protect the body from external aggressors. Let’s say that a virus (such as the common cold) is already in my nasal membranes. It should be kept in check by that portion of the immune system delegated to this (we may not even realize the virus is there), but if the level of immune efficiency is reduced by an external factor, the cold virus may begin to proliferate resulting in a syndrome (don’t worry, it’s just a cold). So it can happen, for example, that eating a lot of cakes and then getting cold after sweating, that a person gets a cold or laryngitis. Maybe the day before he had eaten the same amount of sweets, and nothing happened. If certain parts of the immune system are a bit weak, in fact, it may be that the simple sugars (and some other chemical substances often found in commercial foods) are the last straw for that part of the immune system responsible for guarding against the common cold. But on the other hand, there are people who eat sweets that are never affected by them. Are cakes bad then? For Who? When? In what context? In what way? … I think that trying to make our interpretations more complex is an important step towards true wellness. Happy complexity to all :) [Translated from Italian by Hayley Egan]
Image courtesy of webalice.it
