Dietetics with mythology

Man is what he eats. This is the same banal truth as "take the poison offered to you by the sage, but do not take the balm from the hands of a fool." Or, from the same source of wise truths, "you'd rather starve than eat anything, and it's better to be alone than together with anyone." But most of us eat just about anything, and if we go on a diet, it is very often guided by the advice of not wise men.

In orthodox dietetics, there are both fashionable trends and personal preferences of various schools and individual doctors. One of the main reasons for discussion is that it is better to reduce the caloric content of food at the expense of fats or carbohydrates in the treatment of obesity (the centrists who claim that both are worse are obviously right). The principles of the composition of diets for various diseases, and especially the well-known and boring truths about proper nutrition for healthy people, are gradually changing within the scientific paradigm, generally not deviating too much from the truths known since the time of Hippocrates. But there are also many heresies in dietetics – from harmless interpretations of individual chapters of Cookery and obvious nonsense that even readers of ladies' magazines do not take seriously, to false teachings, zealous followers of which can cause serious harm to their body and even soul: many popular diets are served as a side dish to mystical ideology using the same methods, which are used by totalitarian sects.

Fortunately, man is such a hardy animal that he is able to survive in conditions in which any horse will throw off its hooves. In addition, man is a lazy animal, and many followers of the founders of dietary heresies do not observe their commandments too diligently. But make the representative of the intellectual majority pray to God…

Vegetarianism

– the most ancient and widespread of the unorthodox dietary trends. Let's not argue with the philosophy of vegetarians: it's hopeless to convince a believer. But from the point of view of biology, the principle of "I don't eat anyone" is pure heresy.

Even among vegetarians, there are people who are educated and sensible enough to recognize that the main and almost the only reason for refusing meat lies in the field of morality, not science. For example, Dr. D. McArdle, a vegetarian and a member of the leadership of the American Society of Opponents of Vivisection, began his interview for the Vegetarian Journal as follows:
"A number of popular myths about vegetarianism are not supported by scientific facts. One of these myths is the statement that a person is naturally a vegetarian, since the structure of his body is similar to the structure of the body of herbivores, not carnivores. In fact, we are omnivores, that is, we are able to eat both plant and animal food."

The structure of human teeth and digestive tract is undoubtedly adapted to a mixed diet. There are three types of teeth in human jaws: incisors to cut food, canines to tear it, and molars for crushing. And all three types are intermediate between predators and herbivores.

Predators have fangs much larger than human ones (but they have neither hands nor knives, even stone ones), and molars are not flat, but pointed – they are convenient to bite hard tendons and gnaw bones.

Herbivores do not have canines, and wide and flat, enamel-free (it will be erased anyway) molars are constantly growing. Herbivorous animals have a huge, often multi–chambered stomach and a record–sized appendix populated with symbiotic microorganisms (a rabbit has a length of 30-40 cm, a horse has a volume of 30-40 liters). Many predators have no appendix at all, and in humans it is a rudimentary organ 7-8 cm long.

The length of the intestine in humans is about 7 m, about 8 times longer than the trunk. In a cat, this ratio is about 5, in a cow – 20, in a sheep – almost 30.

Look at the three-dimensional models of the cow, human and dog digestive tract (proportions are not observed). Draw your own conclusions.

Monkeys feed mainly on plant foods, but almost all of their species, catching a lizard or bumping into a bird's nest, do not miss the opportunity to replenish amino acids and animal fats. Our closest relatives of chimpanzees even organize collective hunts for small ungulates and other monkeys (read Jane Goodall's books). According to most anthropologists, our ancestors did the same for millions of years, and even did not disdain carrion. And as soon as the first hominid took a club in his hand, meat in his diet noticeably increased.

Homo sapiens would not have survived migrations to cold regions, and even more so ice ages, without meat and animal fat – high-calorie, easily digestible and thermogenic food (giving a greater heat output from the same amount of calories). Without a radical increase in the proportion of meat in the diet, we would have lived under palm trees – also because the brain needs 16 times more calories per gram of weight than muscles, and without meat and fat Homo would never have become sapiens.

An adult can somehow live on a purely plant-based diet, but animal proteins are absolutely necessary for human cubs. Infants are able to provide maternal milk with the need for them, and after that, the absence of animal proteins in the first years of life can lead not only to various disorders of physical health, but also to alimentary oligophrenia (Latin alimentum – nutrition, Greek oligos – small, phren – mind).

The predominantly plant-based traditional diet of many (warm!) regions are a consequence not of the harm of meat–eating, but of the lack of natural resources. In India, religious principles have been added to this, although there is no ban on meat and fish in Hinduism and other religions of Hindustan. The complete rejection of animal food was practiced there only by particularly enlightened hermits and Jain sectarians who were shifted on the principle of "do not kill". And how did they solve the problem of the shortage of animal proteins in places where the priests did not think of this principle – for example, in New Guinea and the Pacific Islands?

Proteins in plants, even in legumes, are much less than in meat and fish. Plant proteins lack essential amino acids – those that the human body is unable to synthesize from others. And vegetable proteins are poorly absorbed. Some of them remain inside cells protected by walls of indigestible cellulose. In addition, many of the substances contained in plants act as inhibitors of trypsin, an enzyme that breaks down proteins to amino acids, and these inhibitors are often very resistant to heat treatment.

Another problem of the vegetarian diet is the hematopoietic function. In plant products, there is little iron necessary for the synthesis of hemoglobin (and what there is is contained in poorly digested compounds) and there is absolutely no vitamin B12 necessary for the assimilation of iron. Part of it enters the human body from intestinal bacteria, but they live in the large intestine, in which B12 is almost not digested. Without constant intake of this vitamin, vegetarians, especially women and children, are guaranteed iron deficiency anemia. In a purely plant-based diet, some other B vitamins and vitamin A are also lacking (it is partially synthesized from plant carotenoids, but this is not enough). Without taking pills, vegetarians lack calcium and vitamin D, which is synthesized from cholesterol that is absent in vegetable fats. The result is osteoporosis and increased bone fragility. Cholesterol is necessary for many processes occurring in the body (see, for example, the article "Is Cholesterol our friend or enemy?"). Due to the synthesis of our own cholesterol, our body can satisfy about 2/3 of its needs – it's good that there is a lot of cholesterol in eggs, which most vegetarians sometimes consume.

Vegetarians claim that they are much less aggressive than meat eaters. If you want to check it out, try to convince a fanatical vegan (a follower of a particularly extremist trend in this sect, who, unlike more moderate lacto–ovo-vegetarians, do not even eat dairy products and eggs, and sometimes reach a complete raw food diet) of the benefits of meat. If it comes to a fight, other things being equal, the meat eater will probably have a better chance of winning. By the way, all the explorers considered it necessary to note the exclusively peaceful national character of the Eskimos, whose traditional diet consists of almost 100% animal products. And diseases of the cardiovascular system in them due to the abundance of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish oil are even less common than in vegetarians.

Statements like "scientists have proven that vegetarians are healthier than meat–eaters and live longer" are a common distortion. "Oases of Aksakals" are found in regions with traditionally low consumption of meat products, and in Abkhazia, and even in Chukotka. In almost all studies, the authors of which draw unambiguous conclusions about the benefits of vegetarianism, you can find a lot of methodological errors – first of all, the incorrect choice of the control group. In the articles of authors who are less categorical in their assessments, the last phrase of the conclusions usually sounds like this: "the data obtained can be explained not by the peculiarities of the diet, but by the fact that vegetarians are much more likely than ordinary citizens not to smoke or drink, exercise and generally lead a healthier lifestyle." And if, in addition to the above, we take into account dozens of other factors affecting health, up to income and religious affiliation (for example, compare the results of a survey of Adventist vegetarians and Mormon meat eaters), it turns out that a vegetarian diet in itself has virtually no effect on health, life expectancy, or even body weight.

I can send a selection of articles from reputable international journals to those who wish, and also recommend reading full information about one of the most detailed studies of this issue – the Oxford Vegetarian Study. Prejudice of the project participants is excluded: the work was partially funded and supervised by the British Society of Vegetarians, and one of the project leaders, Dr. P. Appleby, adheres to a vegetarian diet. The same article describes two more research programs of the EPIC project (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). 

The rest of the arguments of vegetarians, such as the fact that giving up meat gives a noticeable saving of money, are also easy to check and refute. As for the fact that whole nations easily do without meat, I remember a story about an Indian boy who, after returning from Artek, longingly recalled a pioneer folk dish – brown tortillas called "cutlet".

Macrobiotic

The concept of "macrobiotics" – the doctrine of proper nutrition to preserve health and prolong life – was used by Hippocrates. This term was introduced into the modern scientific lexicon at the end of the XVIII century by the German physician and mystic Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, but his ideas about the vitality of the Sun accumulated in the fruits of the earth are now only of historical interest. In the middle of the XX century, the term was appropriated by followers of a completely different sect, successfully (with millions of copies of books, a chain of restaurants and other ways) selling okroshka from ancient Chinese philosophy, scraps of Zen Buddhism and absolutely anti-scientific ideas about the nutritional value of various products.

The foundations of this creed go back to the Suojin riori ("cuisine that improves judgment") food system used in Buddhist monasteries in Japan. The modern concept of Zen therapeutic nutrition was developed by the Japanese physician Sagen Ichizuka at the end of the XIX century. Among the poor strata of the Japanese population, the ideas of "Doctor Soup" about the treatment of all diseases not with medicines, but with food from specially selected combinations of products have become quite popular. After World War II, one of his followers, replacing the surname Sakurazawa and the name Yoichi, unpronounceable for long-nosed Western barbarians, with the pseudonym George Osawa, adapted Ichizuki's ideas to the European mentality, assigned them the forgotten name "macrobiotics" and began to preach his teachings in Europe and the USA. His students spread the light of Zen macrobiotics throughout the Western world. (In countries where the majority of the population tastes meat only on big holidays, the promotion of macrobiotics, vegetarianism and other dietary perversions is a hopeless matter.)

The diagram shows a "Macrobiotic plate", a visual representation of the composition of the standard diet of Osawa followers.

The main thing in macrobiotics is to maintain the balance of the Yin and Yang originals in products, which is why the body, thanks to the harmonization of the content of the five primary elements in various organs and the cleansing of the chakras (so what if the chakras are from a completely different philosophy?), is guaranteed not only bodily health, but also spiritual enlightenment. Don't even try to find some logic in the division of products into Yin and Yang - you will get confused. Cereals and vegetables grown in colder climates contain mainly Yang, and those grown in warmer climates contain Yin. With fruits – the same picture, but it is also important whether they grew on a tree (then there is more Yin in them) or on the soil (then there is less Yin in them). There are not many Yangs in fruits at all, but they are distributed like this:

Very Yin (little Yang) – Coconut> Pineapple> Papaya> Mango> Pampelmuss> Lemon> Orange> Dates> Banana> Grapes> Peaches> Melon> Watermelon> Plums> Prunes> Almonds > Peanuts> Olives> Strawberries> Pears> Apples (Yin=Yang).

The calculation is finished. I wonder, by the way, what almonds and peanuts do in the list of fruits?

In legumes with small fruits there is more Yang, and with large ones – Yin. And for fish and seafood, the most important sign is that they swim fast (Yang) or slow (Yin). Therefore (!) their abbreviated macrobiotic list looks like this:

Yin (little Yang) – Eel> Carp> Walleye> Cancer> Trout> Flounder>> Som (Yin=Yang) <Shrimp <Herring <Sardines <Caviar (red) – Yang (little Yin).

As you can see, red caviar swims the fastest.

Equally finger-pointing (and much longer) lists exist for all product groups. And the ideal balance of Yin and Yang, according to Osawa and his prophets, is contained in rice. After six preliminary degrees of initiation, their followers should gradually move to the seventh – eating only and exclusively boiled rice. And they will have a hard time, as well as vitamin deficiency, calcium leaching from bones, anemia and much more in the same spirit, and in the end – dystrophy and forced treatment, if relatives and doctors have time.

Fortunately, most macrobiotics are limited to not too careful implementation of recommendations for the lower stages of initiation, such as chewing every sip at least 50 times, or better – 150, turning banal absorption of food into meditation, and drinking less to urinate no more than three times a day. Although in the practice of pediatricians there are cases of irreversible mental and physical disorders in children whose parents, who had read nonsense, were transferred to a macrobiotic diet for several months or even years.

From the book by J. Osawa "Macrobiotic Zen"
"In Macrobiotics, there are ten dietary regimes (see the table) that will allow you to achieve good health by establishing a Yin-Yang balance. And if you understand the theory, you can always choose one of these modes for yourself, which, with persistent and consistent implementation, will certainly lead you to health and happiness.

Macrobiotic nutrition regimesThe percentage of ingredients in the daily diet

N
Cereals	Vegetables	Soups	Meat	Salads	Desserts	Drinks	7
	100%						As little as possible
6	90%	10%
5	80%	20%
4	70%	20%	10%
3	60%	30%	10%
2	50%	30%	10%	10%
1	40%	30%	10%	20%
1a	30%	30%	10%	20%	10%
2a	20%	30%	10%	25%	10%	5%
3a	10%	30%	10%	30%	15%	5%

The modes from bottom to top are listed in ascending order of restrictions
Regimes 5,6,7 – rigid (therapeutic or monastic)
Modes 1,2,3,4 – normal
Modes 1a,2a,3a – soft (for rare use)
You can start by replacing meat with vegetables and legumes and thus become a vegetarian.
But in order to achieve well–being as quickly as possible, I advise you to use regime No. 7. Moreover, cereals are the most healthy and easily digestible food."

(All these are the words of J. Osava, absolutely do not coincide with the opinion of the editors!)

Separate meals

American naturopath Herbert Shelton is one of the most popular among dietary false prophets. His contemporary and compatriot Howard Hay, who also preached separate meals, only in a different manner, failed to make himself as good a promotion. And Shelton's ideas have been living and winning since 1928, when the first of his books, "The Right Food Combinations", was published. But nutrition in Shelton's teaching is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition to the seven-volume "Hygienic System", devoted to all aspects of the theory and practice of a healthy lifestyle and treatment without medication, he wrote a whole shelf of life-teaching books and many articles. As can be seen from the excerpt from the preface to Shelton's book "Natural Hygiene. The righteous way of human life":

"He devoted his life to the study and promotion of Natural Hygiene. And he showed that medicine and hygiene are antagonistic forces. They cannot coexist. Hygiene rejects medicine. And since the true revolution always goes forward and never retreats, there is nothing else left for the coming Hygienic Revolution. The dawn of a new era of human society is breaking over the earth."

Among other things, the lack of medical education helped Shelton to fan the flames of the revolution. He studied at the "International College of Doctors who do not Recognize Medicines", received a diploma from the American School of Naturopathy (the ideas of naturopaths have a very distant relation to medicine and science in general) and completed postgraduate studies at the Chicago College of Chiropractic (unlike related osteopaths, chiropractors categorically dissociate themselves from official medicine).

Among the sources and components of his teaching, Shelton named the Bible, Ayurveda (pre-scientific Indian folk medicine), and the works of contemporary scientists, including I.P. Pavlov, who formally received the Nobel Prize not for the theory of conditioned reflexes, but for early work on the physiology of digestion. In fact, Shelton's ideas have nothing to do with the conclusions from Pavlov's experiments, nor with the generally accepted at the beginning of the XX century (and even more so with modern) ideas about the physiology of digestion. One of the postulates of his teaching is that food is delayed in the esophagus due to improper nutrition (this is not a mistake of translators)! And (according to Shelton) products in unacceptable (according to Shelton) combinations are delayed in the stomach, where they are putrefying. In fact, no putrefaction in the stomach is impossible, because at such a concentration of hydrochloric acid, not a single bacterium survives, except for the "Nobel" Helicobacter pylori.

Shelton's ideas about the compatibility of products (see the table) are not based on anything other than the author's imagination. In particular, it is impossible to combine two different protein products in one meal (for example, meat with nuts or legumes – goodbye, satsivi and lamb with beans!) or different carbohydrates (a sandwich with jam will get stuck in your esophagus, and then rot in your stomach!). Milk is not combined with anything other than butter, so please take porridge at least 2 hours before or after milk with butter, and jam – at the next meal. Jam can be spread on a lettuce leaf: sugar and confectionery cannot be combined with anything other than greens. And melons and watermelons are not combined with anything at all. Etc.

Shelton Product Compatibility Table+ good

Our physiology is adapted to the assimilation of nutrients from a mixture of various ingredients – this is how our ancestors ate for the last couple of billion years. So it is possible that the weight loss noted by Shelton's consistent followers is just the result of incomplete assimilation of food in addition to reducing the total caloric content of the diet. And the improvement of well-being occurs, as with many other not-too-fanatical diets, simply by replacing snacks with anything on a conscious attitude to food, as well as as a result of fractional nutrition, reducing the consumption of "light" carbohydrates and "heavy" animal fats (the recommendations of the best nutritionists coincide with the individual advice of many heretics) and that's it the same as other sectarians, the propensity for other aspects of a healthy lifestyle.

In the next article, we will analyze diets in which there are no mystical components, but, as in the ones described here, there are no scientific justifications, nor, most offensively, any benefits for health and beauty. And although their authors claim the opposite, gullible readers, sitting down on diets, most often harm both their body and their figure.

Alexander Chubenko
Portal "Eternal youth" www.vechnayamolodost.ru
The journal version of the article was published in Popular Mechanics No. 6-2008

10.06.2008