A food should provide nourishment for health. The opposite of food is a poison, which is unhealthy. By this usage of words all food is health food. Google health food and you will find there is no control of what is called healthy. A natural food or whole food or dietary supplement are called “health foods” and likewise there is no control over what can be called natural or whole or dietary supplement. The matter distills to healthy being what professionals consider to be healthy. You are healthy when a professional says you are healthy.
This is nothing new, and we do NOT need a law to dictate what can or cannot be called healthy. We have lost the ability to think for ourselves and depend on professionals to tell us the obvious. Perhaps the reason I don’t feel well is because I am not healthy. I could accept that, but you lose me when you say eating health food will make me healthy.
Why is natural better than purified? Can someone who is not ill or injured be unhealthy? Is maintaining health the same as avoiding illness and injury? Why do healthy people to eat health food?
Acceptance of Rational Existence provides a model to be our own professional. People are capable of critical thinking and when it comes to health food, well, a food that is not healthy is poison.
Health is what we aspire to when we are ill or injured. So what is healthy in this sense is that which is conducive to regaining health, and that usage of the word is quite a bit different from healthy food. In fact, when I am ill or recuperating I choose foods often called “empty calories” because I want the quick energy and easy to digest qualities of such food for healing.
Within the frameworks of Rational Existence we can easily examine the difference between being healthy and healthy food or healthy living. For example in human history there was the belief that a purified and sanitary food was more healthy than a raw or natural food. We can ask ourselves when and why that understanding of health changed but that would approach heresy. Is there a reason a whole or natural food is more healthy than a purified or processed food? If so, why are dietary supplements, the epitome of processed or purified food, more healthy than purified sugar or bleached flour?
What we are examining here is the reasoning and logic. Proponents of healthy food and healthy living propose all kinds of diets that will make you healthy with very, very little attention to the tiny detail of just how one knows when one is healthy. Some of the most vocal proponents of healthy diets appear to be the least healthy or fit or athletic or active.
Studies circulate that tell of a chance that something might injure or sicken some people and such a study is touted as proof that we should all do something which is against common everyday belief. For example some calories are good but some are empty which means these calories are unaccompanied by other “nutrients” like proteins, amino acids, vitamins and dietary minerals. Health professionals often assert that such nutrients cannot be mixed in with the empty calories because those calories will still be empty even with the other nutrients mixed in.
Another example is that foods that are high in cholesterol are deemed bad even if a person eats such food in moderation and has no medical indication that cholesterol levels are elevated in the blood systems. A food that has no ill effect on billions of people in human history is then deemed unhealthy and we cannot by law feed such a food to our children.
I believe I have alienated my entire family with the simple proposition that honey is no more healthy than purified cane sugar from the grocery store. The question is why honey or other substances that are harvested from nature are considered more healthy than things that are purified or extracted from their original vegetable existence. And why it matters if humans instead of bees purify or extract the substance.
Without connections to reality we have no way of gauging whether or not a health practice is effective. If we cannot objectively define healthy it will be difficult to think critically about what is or is not healthy.
Rational Existence shows us that reality is not science, is not a study, is not the avoidance or use of anything. What Rational Existence proposes is the valuable, the useful, the thing that works is the truth. You are what you do. If our model works then the model reflects and shows the truth. Our existence is not physical but rather built upon the relationships, aspects and attributes of a true existence we will never know.
When we live with Rational Existence that which produces the desired product, the appearance AND the process that produces the desired product is part and parcel to that product. Therefore if we realize our Rational Existence being healthy is a healthful appearance and a proclivity to future health. That which produces the appearance and proclivity is healthy. A food which produces the appearance of health and the proclivity to future health is a health food. The test for whether or not a food is healthy is if that food produces the appearance of health and the proclivity to future health.
Certainly diet and exercise are all important for health. But more important than diet and exercise is knowing the desired result. When we know that what we are looking for is the appearance of health and the proclivity to future health we are closer to finding healthy foods for ourselves. What is healthy for me may not be healthy for you. And no one can know without a great deal of data over a long period of time if any food is likely to be healthy for any specific individual. What we are looking for is a food that will bring us back to health when we are ill or injured, and will keep us from becoming ill or injured as far as that is possible to do.
Rational Existence, although reasonable and undeniably correct, it is in direct opposition to our entire culture with Health Food and unhealthy diets and proposals that some foods or actions or clothing or pets or skin tone is/are more healthy than others. By what definition of health do we find certain foods to be unhealthy? Are these foods that keep us from healing? No, they are not. What is considered to be healthy is what is called healthy, a tautology.
I propose we throw out entirely what is *considered* to be healthy and consider for ourselves what is healthy. Whatever we are told should be researched. Understanding is the best advice. If it makes sense to you it is good, if it doesn’t make sense to you it is not good. So here are some challenging words for the perspective of Rational Existence that we all should consider.
There are no unhealthy foods. Such a thing would be a poison. However, each of us should know our bodies and our diets to know how we function after eating certain diets. Just because someone cannot handle lactose or fat or peanuts does not mean lactose and fat and peanuts should be outlawed.