Natural nutrition. Natural nutrition for humans. Man is a carnivore or herbivore

Are you here: digestive

The media is constantly pushing us with foods that are in no way related to proper nutrition, confirms the site. . Therefore, the very culture of food as such in our society is practically absent. Constantly advertising chips, crackers, non-natural yoghurts and instant vermicelli, television imposes on us the consumption of anything but natural products that would make it possible to keep our body healthy and strong. We asked ourselves what and how to eat in order, first of all, to saturate the body with health and energy?

We do not live for the sake of constantly eating

The food we eat is not the goal. This is only a means for our body to function normally and receive the energy it needs. Therefore, you need to eat only those foods that:

benefit him
have a good effect on the psycho-physiological state,
provide the necessary energy.

In other words: try to eat natural food.

Eat only when you are hungry

Animals begin to eat only when they begin to suffer from hunger. We have long weaned ourselves from this feeling and eat because we have an appetite. These are fundamentally different things.

Water is the juice of life

We all know that we are 80% water. In addition, with the help of a properly constructed water regime, you can regulate the feeling of hunger. The daily intake of clean water is 1.5-2 liters in winter and 2-3 in summer.

In addition, to improve digestion, you should drink half a glass of water every 15-20 minutes. As you remember, with natural nutrition, you need to eat only when hunger appears. And vice versa, if you have a feeling of hunger, and you do not have the opportunity to eat, then it is better not to drink water, but to replace it with a decoction of herbs.

In any case, drink water - half a glass 30 minutes before meals, and after a meal, limit its consumption, as it dilutes gastric juice, which worsens digestion.

Learn to chew properly

When eating solid foods, it is absolutely essential to watch how you chew your food. In no case should you swallow uncooked pieces. Solid food should be chewed properly so that it mixes with saliva to a liquid slurry, only then swallowed. In our saliva there are biochemical components that already in the mouth begin the process of digestion.

Liquid food should not be swallowed immediately, it must also be held in the mouth so that it is properly mixed with saliva.

Learn to enjoy your meal

When eating, do not rush and do other things at the same time as eating food. Food should fill your mouth as long as you can taste it. So you can achieve a feeling of fullness not when the stomach is full, but when the brain gives a signal about a sufficient amount of food absorbed.

The brain receives signals about food intake from taste buds, and already from 1/3 of the usual portion you will feel full, then overeating and obesity will not threaten you.

Eating is primarily a ritual

Do not be distracted while eating by watching TV, mobile phones and other irritants. During this process, the brain is distracted by other signals and does not receive satiety information in time. This leads to:

poor chewing of food
impossibility to get enough
poor combination of products,
overeating, etc.

Correct meal times

Natural nutrition involves the last meal 4 hours before going to bed, and preferably 7 if it was meat. This is due to the fact that:

Food is better digested when a person is in the process of active life (walking, running, etc.). In addition, anatomically it is arranged in such a way that the process of digestion occurs more efficiently when a person is in an upright position. A different location of the intestine can cause gas formation, fermentation, deterioration of peristalsis, etc.
The speed of digestion of certain products is different. Carbohydrates are digested in 4 hours, while proteins need up to 7.

In addition, those who monitor their health suggest eating 1 time per day to stimulate proper metabolism, increase life expectancy and strengthen their health.

Do not force your body with drastic restrictions

If you decide to switch to a healthier diet, you need to do it gradually. Do not force yourself to forbid yourself to eat this or that product, just gradually reduce its consumption.

An abrupt transition to very strict diets often leads to a food breakdown than to positive results. The body must be gradually accustomed to new foods or habits and abandon the old bad habits.

Keep your body clean

Our body periodically needs. In the practice of yoga, there are many ways of cleansing, which are successfully used in folk and traditional medicine.

relax the digestive organs,
self-purify and self-repair the body.

The function of purification and restoration is inherent in our body by nature. It just needs to be skillfully launched.

In some cases, dry fasting can be used. However, in any case, you will need a course of theoretical and practical training.

It is interesting to observe the trends in the development of natural nutrition. More recently, books were published about the dangers of animal protein, where it was called the cause of "all troubles." Later, a raw food diet became widespread, where the cause of all adversity was put on the “shoulders” of heat treatment. Progress, as you know, never stands still. Now even a raw food diet is not as easy as it seemed before: people refuse nuts, sprouts, root vegetables, oils, mixing ... why?

Naturalness has always been the main criterion for the “correctness” of a particular diet! That's just the understanding of this term for each person his own. The vegetarian believes that meat is unsuitable for us to eat, because we are not predators, and this is clearly indicated by the structure of our body; the raw foodist believes that food should never be heat-treated; and many scientists, on the contrary, are inclined to believe that it was the fire and the abundance of meat food that made it possible for a person to reveal his potential and get a lot of additional “calories”.

Let's see what "natural" actually is? I also want to try to unequivocally answer the question of what kind of food is natural for a person. Raw food? fruitarianism? Or maybe omnivorous?

Naturalness

Let's first define the concepts in order to exclude the possibility of errors. By what criteria do we determine what is natural for a particular living organism and what is not?

It is natural for a bird to fly, for a cheetah to run fast. The wolf eats flesh, the cow chews grass. Everything seems obvious at first glance naturalness- these are some properties in a living organism that were obtained as a result of adaptation to the environment. If he acts unnaturally, he loses in efficiency, which often leads to the death of the individual. E then some “rules”, following which a living being is able to evolve.

Let's take a wild cat as an example and observe its development. Due to innate variability, with each generation we will receive variations in the qualities of her cubs: some newborns will turn out to be more “clawed”, others will be light, others will be reduced in size, etc. If a in these living conditions these qualities turn out to be more useful, then, accordingly, such cubs are much more likely to continue the race than brothers and sisters. As a result, in the jungle we will get cats that are dark, sneak up more efficiently and are capable of lightning-fast jumps, and lighter ones in the savannah, where endurance is already valued, not reaction. So the formation of species is simplified. And we call the qualities acquired as a result natural in a given habitat.

Obviously, having seen the properties that a living organism has, we can partially imagine the conditions in which it lives or was formed. And vice versa, having seen a part of nature, we will roughly say what properties in it will be more valuable.

In well-known experiments carried out by G.Kh. Shaposhnikov (1961, 1965, 1966), the population of aphids Dysaphis anthrisci maicopica was transplanted from the host plant on which this species (Anthriscus nemorosa) develops in nature, to another, unsuitable host plant Chaerophyllum bulbosum , and then to the previously completely unusable Ch. maculatum. After each transplantation, a “crisis” period was first observed, during which mortality increased sharply and variability increased (morphological destabilization occurred). Then the population adapted to new conditions: mortality and variability decreased, a new “adaptive norm” was formed, different from the previous one.
Individuals of the transformed population showed reproductive incompatibility with the original (control) population, which was not exposed to stressful conditions. More surprisingly, there is partial compatibility with another aphid species, D. chaerophyllina, which is native to Ch. maculatum.

So we can conclude that any features acquired by a living organism are the result of prolonged exposure to environmental conditions. And they are natural.

What makes a person stand out?

Man also has a number of features. Let's highlight some of them that make it stand out from its predecessors:

Relative omnivorous. Man stands out sharply from most mammals precisely in his flexibility with regard to taste preferences.
Significant influence of the presence of physical activity on the performance of the body
Loss of coat
Significant development of the psyche and, accordingly, increased brain size

I suggest not fantasizing about the past, but looking at the present and thinking about the question: “How did we acquire these properties?” Let me remind you only that these qualities appeared only for the reason natural need for them. No other way.

Nutrition and lifestyle of our ancestors

And now you can try to imagine how our ancestors lived, that we have become what we are today.

For some reason, in the imagination of adherents of “natural nutrition”, the picture of the life of a person of the past seems to be beautiful landscapes with an abundance of orchards and azure ocean coastlines. A heavenly measured life, where as soon as you reach out your hand, a ripe mango or a juicy bunch of grapes falls into it. Everything that falls out of this image immediately seems “unnatural” and superfluous.

But how then could the above singularities be formed under such conditions?

Homo sapiens was formed in conditions of food shortage, and huge competition for it. And not only from the side of frugivorous, but also intraspecific! Our ancestors had to travel vast distances in search of food, shelter from bad weather and predators. Today's sedentary lifestyle has nothing to do with the stress that sapiens were subjected to in search of shelter and food. As a result our entire circulatory, lymphatic system and thermoregulation mechanisms were formed precisely in motion. And without it, they do not function fully.

According to scientists, Homo Sapiens left Africa 90-85 thousand years ago, and this group of settlers gave rise to the entire modern civilization. In the first stage, people first settled along the shores of the southern coast of Asia.

Food, of course, was given the main attention, for the banal reason for its lack. Yes, gathering was at the heart of our diet, but man never disdained other foods, especially in "hard times", dry seasons, etc. And food from coastal waters was especially common.

Let's think about what was the main incentive to "throw off" the coat? It is worth remembering that wool is an excellent evolutionary "acquisition" for many animals: it warms the body in the cold, weighs little, does not restrict physical activity ... But it has one significant drawback: it is not effective in water! But the fatty layer is the opposite, therefore it is a "distinguishing feature" of all marine life, and its principle of operation is different from wool (it retains heat, wool does not allow cold).

We have been "tied" to the coast for millennia. The ocean and rivers were a constant source of food like shellfish, fish, crabs, etc.

Further expansion to all corners of the continent meant a serious expansion of the framework familiar to man.

He no longer disdained hunting in the savannas, and eating the remains of animals killed by predators. It was during this period that the tendency of brain growth began to be observed, and as a result, the spectrum of mental functions expanded, which became the prerequisites for further cardinal changes. Joint hunting, tool making and other social skills appeared. The diet expanded even more and began to include more often the meat of herbivorous terrestrial creatures and everything that came to hand (eggs, insects ...).

When were we able to tame fire? Anthropologists differ in their opinions about the exact date: the earliest found bonfire is 790 thousand years old, there were also finds 1.5 million years old, but their indisputability is being questioned. It is known for sure that a person began to cook meat on fire much earlier than vegetables, cereals and other foods.

It is thanks to such a thorny path of the formation of our species (which is considered very simplified) and will to survive, we are those who are. With its "shortcomings" and striking differences from all wildlife.

Our natural diet

The natural human diet is what our bodies have adapted to through millions of years of evolutionary change. Summing up the above, it is not difficult to determine what type of food a person is adapted to:

We were formed as frugivorous, therefore, all raw plant foods are the most valuable for a healthy person in his natural habitat. Fruits, berries, root crops, nuts, greens are our food.
We have relative adaptation to meat. Therefore, for a person, eating raw meat in moderation(especially marine life), eggs, insects and everything else that could come to hand during the thousands of years of formation is natural. Meat in small quantities will not cause noticeable harm to a person. Evolution has laid in us all the necessary set of enzymes for its assimilation. (And even heat-treated foods are much better for us than other fire-treated foods.) This fact of the absence of harm from meat food with rare use has been confirmed more than once by some raw foodists and fasting practitioners. That's right, a human child does not have the instincts of a predator, but he does not have an innate aversion to flesh, this is an already acquired “skill”.
A person simply did not have time to adapt his body to cereals, dairy products and other late innovations, so the massive consumption of this food can be a cause of health problems.
Heat treatment of non-meat food is generally a novelty for our species and originated no more than 10 thousand years ago. Therefore, a huge number of modern diseases are rightly associated with its use.

I want to make a clarification. The above does not mean that if we have such fitness, then we are obliged to follow it and start eating raw meat or eggs. It's just an ability that we have, and its use today is not as necessary as it used to be.

The naturalness of the use of tools

Often, supporters of, say, fruitarianism “delete” root vegetables and nuts from their menu, arguing that in the wild, a person simply will not eat them, because the fruit growing in the ground does not naturally attract our attention, and we don’t have any special " tools" to dig it. And nuts are very hard for our teeth, so they also could not take their rightful place in our menu.

We don't need squirrel-like teeth to eat nuts and a boar's snout to pluck vegetables! It's worth remembering that for man the use of tools is in itself natural. This is our way of development, our unique feature! In nature, even modern monkeys (who are not our direct ancestors) often use improvised means:

And these are not random cases. All skills are given special close attention:

Animals also have cultural inheritance - for example, the ability to crack nuts with stones is passed down from generation to generation in some chimpanzee populations, and in different populations there are different traditional methods of cracking nuts. And these traditions have been passed down and preserved in chimpanzee populations for thousands of years. And cracking nuts is not an innate behavior, it is learned in the first years of life, and it is learned for a long time and with great difficulty.

Yes, primates ... even birds use sticks to pick out insects from wood. And to say that this is unnatural for a person is completely absurd. Suffice it to recall the school curriculum, which says that it was the development of skills in handling tools and their collective use that contributed to the separation of manfrom other primates.

And for all these abilities, completely different functions of the psyche and brain volumes are required. . Not a single monkey today, even the most talented and specially trained by people, can make tools. She only knows how to use them directly here and now, and not to produce "in advance" and even more so to save "for later." For a person, the use of tools, the ability to separate the goal from motivation (which is simply necessary in the division of labor) and other social abilities are natural.

Therefore, to say that carrots or nuts are unnatural food for us, because. it is difficult for us to get them without tools - this is tantamount to forbidding a bird to peck at berries, because they hang high. Moreover, if a person were a strict fruitarian, he would never did not become social. There would be no natural need for this.

findings

Man is a fruit-eating creature in his structure. But he never did not strictly adhere to his “ideal diet”, and not because meat is something indispensable, but because Every creature must always adequately correspond to its habitat and the current moment of reality. And she wasn't always happy. But it is precisely because of this variety of trials that we have become what we are today.

A person is adapted to fruits and to the rare eating of improvised "living creatures", such as shellfish meat, fish, insects, etc. All this food has been eaten raw by us for a huge period of time, and evolution has "taught" us to eat it. This is our natural natural diet.

What are these pollutants and where do they come from? In fact, there are quite a few sources: from the air we breathe to the information that hovers around us. But still, the main supplier of all kinds of pollution, of course, is our food, or to be more precise, unnatural food.

Natural food is the food that nature has provided for man as a biological species. Everything that does not belong to it, firstly, will be less nutritious, and secondly, it will clog our body to a greater extent.

In the process of digestion of such food, a significant amount of substances is formed that are not of nutritional value for the body, so it is forced to get rid of them intensively. At the same time, the excretory systems experience an increased load and do not always cope with it. As a result, such substances are deposited in secluded corners of the body and "wait in the wings" when the body is able to remove them.

This is a very interesting process, which can be easily illustrated by the example of age-related changes. Imagine the same person at 20, 40 and 60 years old. Right now, a program is automatically triggered in your head that roughly estimates the state of the body and health at these stages of life. What difference do you observe?

If you think about what causes this difference, it becomes clear that the state of the human body directly depends on how much pollution it has managed to accumulate by the age of 20, 40 and 60, respectively.

Now, for comparison, let's look at animals, such as domestic dogs and cats. Their life expectancy averages 15 years (in cats - up to 20, a little longer than dogs). At the same time, these animals reach reproductive age by about a year, that is, already at the age of 1 year (dogs - at 1.5 years) they are able to produce offspring. A person becomes sexually mature by the age of 15–20 years, with an average life expectancy of 70 years. It turns out that in humans, the reproductive period is only 3 times longer than the maturation period, while in dogs and cats it is 14-15 times longer!

Moreover, if we compare, for example, dogs in the prime of life, at the age of 2-3 years, and in the period of extinction, at 9-10 years old, we will see that both externally and in behavior they will practically not differ. A specialist may notice the difference, but for most it will be indistinguishable. An old dog will be just as playful and sensitive as a young one. And the same can be said about almost all animals, and about wild ones - even more so than about domestic ones, the state of which people managed to influence not in the best way.

What happens to people? Why does the state of the body change so much at 20, 40, 60, and even more so at 80? The answer is obvious: the human body is constantly, systematically polluted due to the consumption of the most unnatural, the most unsuitable food for it.

The trouble is that the amount of this food is incommensurably more than we really need to survive. We eat for pleasure, not for sustenance, and this is inevitably reflected in our health.

In my speeches, I like to ask the audience this question: what happens if you cut the diet of an ordinary person by 5 times? He will die? No, he will not die - the remaining food will be enough for him. Will he get sick? Perhaps his body will go through some period of purification, which will resemble an illness, but fundamentally, believe me, his health will only noticeably improve over time.

What objectively negative effects will arise from this reduction in food? A bad mood at first - this can be expected with 100% probability. It will worsen, because human food is mainly a source of emotions and entertainment, but not a source of life. It is this peculiarity of the diet of modern people that leads to the fact that in the body of most of them there is a constant accumulation of pollution, which, one way or another, affects health.

It's time to figure out what kind of pollution we are talking about. Conventionally, they can be divided into two groups: the first is slag, second - toxins.

Slags are substances that accumulate but do not cause changes or damage in the body.

Simply put, slag is garbage that accumulates in the body, which you just need to take out. The problem is not the presence of slags, but their quantity. If the excretory systems cope with the removal of toxins that we receive with food, then they are not deposited and, accordingly, nothing threatens health in the future. But if the amount of these slags exceeds the capabilities of the excretory systems, prerequisites are created for the onset of diseases.

natural nutrition

Yes, it's natural. After all, eating is normal - it's natural. Dieting is unnatural. Eat when hungry - naturally. Not eating when hungry is against nature. There is what you want - naturally. Eating under compulsion is against nature. That's all there is to it. It's that simple.

In fact, nutrition should be given minimal attention. Minimum. Just eat what you want. And when you want. Just eat healthy, complete foods, not surrogates. Surely some will be outraged. How is it that nutrition is so important? Yes, it's important. But in reality, in fact, no one really knows how to eat to be healthy. What is proper nutrition? No one, really no one, really knows. There are no specific rules that guarantee one hundred percent health. Or even fifty percent.

That is, we are now talking about proper nutrition in general, without regard to excess weight. There are generally accepted guidelines. There are deduced rules about the quantitative ratio of proteins, fats and carbohydrates. There are numerous and very confusing, and often even contradictory data on individual batteries. But there are people who eat somehow all their lives and maintain their health for many years.

Here we have a neighbor in the country, for example. She is seventy-five, she plows the garden for two. And it looks nice. Not like some promoters of a healthy lifestyle, the sight of which causes physiological disgust. I don’t want to plow in the garden, but at 75 I would not refuse to be as cheerful and active as she is. At the same time, she eats only harmful things, well, from the point of view of nutritionists, but with pleasure. And eating at night is perhaps her favorite treat. And when she remembers her hungry childhood in Leningrad, I don’t understand at all how she survived. And nothing. Three hundred grams of black bread and some potatoes - that's the whole daily diet. “But what about without protein, is it necessary?” I ask naively. But like this.

In fact, man is a very tenacious creature. If he does not powder his head with various nonsense. And there are those who try to eat right, but it turns out very sad. For example, the story with Savely Kramarov, there was such an artist, if anyone remembers. At the time, she just blew my mind. A man wanted to live to be 150 years old, ran, did yoga, ate according to the most strict rules of a healthy diet, and died at the age of 60 from colon cancer, and even so scary. And Montignac? He taught, taught us how to eat right, and died at 66 years old. Yes, skinny. But obviously not healthy. It remains only to be glad that I "got off" it so quickly. No, it's not for nothing that my motto is - why will I refuse chocolate today if tomorrow I can accidentally get under a tram?

Frankly, this topic is very, very interesting to me. Perhaps because I have such a character. I don't like to obey. I do not like to follow generally accepted rules if I do not understand what is what and why. And the time will come when I will deal with this topic closely. And today, only one thing is clear to me: there is no nutrition system that guarantees one hundred percent health and longevity. There is not. Not a single preacher of a healthy lifestyle has crossed the centennial milestone. No one. So why should I obey any rules? For what? Why should I refuse Pepsi Light if I like this drink? But with this love for Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Light, well, everyone just stuffed me. No, I am not saying that Pepsi Light is good. I do not suggest that everyone immediately start drinking it. But prove to me that this is bad. Prove it. There is no evidence. Staring eyes in holy horror are not accepted as evidence.

No, I'm not stubborn. I'm just normal. I think so. And many, alas, behave like zombies. Now, if a group of comrades stood up now, well, at least ten people, at least, and said: here we ate in such and such a way, and now we are all healthy as one, look great and we are all 100 years old. Well, at least 100. About 150, I'm already silent. I would think.

That's why I'm against the rules. That's why I say: eat what you want. But not just like that. If someone thinks that I am for gluttony, then not at all. Not at all. Not at all. I'm for healthy eating. For normal. Remove the reasons that make you overeat - and eat as much as you want. Get back to your natural food regulation mechanism - and eat as much as you want. Learn to listen to yourself - and eat what you want. Remove the reasons that make you eat all sorts of rubbish - and eat what you want. Love yourself - and eat what you want. Be joyful, be active - and eat what you want. Make plans, strive, develop, enjoy life - and eat what you want. And then you will eat as much as you need. And what you need. And then when you need it. That's when you will eat right. And this is our long-term goal.

This is, in fact, the whole essence of the dietary part of this technique. Learn to eat right. Naturally. Learn not to think about food all day, but just eat when you're hungry. And do not eat - when full. That's what's important.

What are we doing? We develop new eating habits. But not through force, not through coercion, but through love. Through self-confidence. And through the formation of their image of harmony. Here, too, everything is twisted into one ball. If you just eat whatever you want, then it will be uncontrollable gluttony. It certainly won't lead to anything good. But we diligently rejoice, diligently eliminate negative emotions that provoke us to uncontrolled eating. We eliminate complexes, dissatisfaction with ourselves, fears and false attitudes. And our relationship to food is becoming more conscious. More meaningful. More calm. We remove the reasons that push us to overeat, and at the same time we cultivate the confidence that we can eat whatever we want. This is how we change our old “I can’t eat much” mindset to the new “I can eat whatever I want.”

And this new attitude, which we gradually get used to, in turn eliminates our negative attitude towards food. Removes fear of food. We are no longer afraid to overeat. And so we eat less. Here is such a paradox. With the help of this program, we restore a normal relationship with food. We remove the fear of food. We remove the feeling of guilt for the fact that we eat too much. Or not that kind of useful. And when we are joyful, when we are in a positive mood, we unconsciously begin to want to eat more proper food. Checked. When we are depressed, depressed, resentful, angry or depressed, we want all sorts of nasty things. Checked. I want the thrill of eating. Yes exactly. When we are sad, when we are bored, when we are sick, when we are sad, we want the thrill of food. When we are sad, when we feel bad, we want to find joy in food. When it's good, when we're happy, when we're comfortable, when we're inspired by something, when we're happy, we just eat. Joyfully. With pleasure. But no excitement. And that's why we don't overeat.

Eat when you're hungry. What could be more natural? Is it okay to eat five or six small meals a day? Don't know. Maybe good. Do I need to eat strictly by the clock, at the same time? Don't know. Should I have breakfast in the morning? Don't know. When should you eat your last meal before bed? Don't know. These are questions for which there is no single, definite answer. Some experts think so, others not. Today is the rule, tomorrow it is the exact opposite.

For example, take the idea of not eating after six. Do not eat after six - and you will lose weight. Do not eat after six - and you will always be slim. Better yet, don't eat after four - and then - well, at all. And interestingly, it's true. When people ask me what are the surest ways to lose weight, I answer that you should not eat after six or switch to separate meals. Because it really works. Really works. These are really working methods. Iron working methods. So, today doctors have come to the conclusion that in fact it is not so. In fact, if you do not eat after six, you will generally gain weight. And they provide compelling scientific evidence. That is, people very often do not eat after six - and lose weight. And experts give convincing scientific evidence that this cannot be. That if you do not eat after six, then your body will go into starvation mode and its metabolism will slow down. And when you finally eat in the morning, everything eaten will go straight to stocks. And instead of losing weight, you will get fat. These are the moments from scientific discussions that I always really like. And, alas, there are a lot of them.

But what could be more natural than eating when you're hungry? That's what's important. What's the point of proving something if I'm not suggesting anything new? Why should I believe if I offer not a new way of eating, but the oldest one. The most verified. The most natural. If you want to eat - eat. If you don't want to, don't eat. Wait for a signal from your body when it needs food again. Then he won't have to save anything. That's all. It's that simple. Why complexity? Why guess if you can eat after six or not? Should I have breakfast or not? Why do I need to paint a complex digestive system to prove my case? I do not need. Let paint those who develop their own rules. Those who consider themselves smarter than nature. Those who believe that our body is something stupid and helpless, in need of constant control. While our body, above all, needs our respect for it.

There is so much to eat. To satisfy your need for food completely. Isn't it natural to eat enough to fill up? Doesn't a person eat to eat? What does the word eat mean? It means to eat so much that the desire to eat is gone. Everything, the need for food is satisfied. This is what it means to eat. Everything, I'm full. That's what it means to eat. That's it, I'm full and therefore food is indifferent to me. This is what it means to eat. To eat is to satisfy your need for food completely. What does completely mean? So that's it, food is no longer interested. Some time.

When the need for food is satisfied, there is no more need for it. When you get complete satisfaction in sex, you don't want anything else. Some time. Why does no one advise leaving the bed half-satisfied? And from the toilet half-empty? Then why do you have to leave the table half-starved? Why does no one advise you to leave the toilet, a little unfinished business? Why do you have to leave the table a little hungry? Food is as much a physiological need as sex or bladder emptying. Why does no one regulate how much urine should be released at a time? But on the other hand, regulating how much you need to eat at a time is normal. At one time, you need to eat such a volume of food that fits in your palms folded together. Have you heard about it? For sure. The capacity of your two palms put together is approximately the size of your stomach. That is, we have a small stomach. Therefore, you need to eat little, in small portions, but often. Here is a rule. Who came up with this? Why? I don't know. But I know who came up with the idea that our stomach can stretch and take very significant amounts of food. This is nature. She is the most. The one who is wise. Why doesn't anyone tell a boa constrictor that swallowing a rabbit whole is bad? Which is better in pieces. Small. But often.

Who makes up these rules? In what head are they born? And now everyone is already going to each other and these rules are told. Like a zombie.

For example, I have a dog that I feed normal food. Why? Because once upon a time I had a cat, which I also fed with ordinary food at first, and then Whiskas appeared. It was just after perestroika, when we began to master the basics of the capitalist market. And with these basics advertising came to our market. And I started buying jars of cat food for my cat, which, by the way, cost more than meat. But I thought that this is how I take care of my cat and provide him with normal, complete, complex nutrition, which I cannot provide him with ordinary food. Until one day I read an article, the essence of which can be summarized in one phrase: to what extent it is necessary to turn off a person’s brain in order to convince him that canned food is more useful than normal food.

I remember I felt ashamed. Highly. Not because I fed my cat with canned food, but because I'm such a fool. Turns out. Because I'm so easily fooled. Turns out. That's why I feed my dog regular food. But not so long ago I was told that there is a veterinarian, she also has a Yorkshire, and she transferred her dog to dry food, as it is better. They say, firstly, when we feed simple food, we cannot provide a balanced diet. Well, I've heard this song before. And secondly, the Yorkshire Terrier has a small ventricle, and when he eats ordinary food, his stomach becomes too large and puts pressure on neighboring organs, disrupting their work. I love my dog and want her to be healthy. So I thought. Well, since veterinarians believe that dry food is better ... I got on the Internet to study this issue, after which I was convinced once again: it’s so much to unlearn how to turn on your brain completely, that even having a veterinary education, be led to such nonsense.

No, I don’t want to touch this topic with feed as such now, let everyone decide for himself. But this thesis about a small ventricle shocked me. When it finally hit me. You understand? A person with a special education seriously says that since a dog has a small ventricle, it is bad for her to eat ordinary food, it is better to eat dry food, which does not stretch the stomach. Which one is small? Yes, it is exactly what you need for its size. It is proportionate to her size. What about feeding a mouse? She has a smaller stomach. Is it also better to feed small children with dry food, otherwise their stomachs are not as big as those of us adults? And balancing the diet with regular food is difficult.

Where does this nonsense come from? I know where. From advertising. From the fact that most of the information we draw from advertising. Alas, advertising is a reality of our days. And even in medicine or veterinary medicine, doctors are sometimes unable to separate truth from fiction. I wrote the ad myself. I know this kitchen. I know how you sit and suck from your finger, what else could you come up with to praise the dignity of the product. Oh idea. Brilliant. Ordinary food stretches the stomach, squeezing neighboring organs, but dry food does not. Fine! And you need to come up with something. Since, apart from undoubted convenience, dry food has no other advantages. But there are many shortcomings. Including, for example, the fact that animals fed dry food live less on average than those fed regular food. This is a statistically confirmed fact. But we do not know this fact, unless we specifically study this topic. But on the other hand, we are inspired from all sides with the idea that feeding your pet with canned food is taking care of him. That feeding your dog or cat dry food means taking care of their health.

That's how we live. This is how normal food becomes abnormal. This is how we are convinced that dietary supplements are better than ordinary fruits and vegetables. This is how we are convinced that ordinary food cannot give us everything we need. Therefore, we must definitely accept ... The further list can be simply endless. Because we really need iodine, and chromium, and manganese, and vitamin C, and vitamin B. But we will never, ever satisfy our needs with just food, because ...

I wrote these articles myself. I know this kitchen very well. Not so long ago I saw an advertisement for new vitamins on TV. Rather, a new vitamin-mineral complex, created taking into account the compatibility of the components. Like, there are vitamins and microelements that, when taken together, have a bad effect on each other. Therefore, they must be taken at different times, which is taken into account just in this complex. The first time I saw this ad, I laughed outright. I literally saw how people sat and sat, scratching their heads on the topic of what to come up with in order to break into the already densely packed market of vitamins - and they came up with it.

And there was something to try. After the arms and drugs trade, the sale of medicines is the most profitable business. Especially when it comes to supplements. Since it takes many years and money to create a real medicine. And you don't need to spend anything on supplements. Their effectiveness does not need to be proven. Long-term clinical trials are not required. You just need to get a hygiene certificate at the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, do not skimp on advertising - and you can calculate the profit.

Here we are fed with advertising. And we eat. No, I'm not against supplements in general. But this is a very complex topic. And it is difficult even for specialists to separate the wheat from the chaff here. That is why I do not advise you any additional food supplements. That's why I didn't take anything on purpose. No iodine, no vitamins, no Omega-3s. That is what is usually included in weight loss programs. Why? Here, take all the same "Omega-3". There is evidence that this fatty acid, despite its frightening name, intensifies the breakdown of fats and reduces the number of fat cells, especially in the abdomen. Just great. And now this unfortunate Omega-3, and at the same time Omega-6, is being imposed on us almost by force. But besides jars bought at a pharmacy or from network marketing representatives, there are also standard sources of these really important fatty acids that we need. I mean regular food. What exactly? So that's the thing, it doesn't matter.

Eat what you want. Live with joy, with confidence in yourself. Enjoy your body. Feel like a slim and healthy person - and eat what you want. And your body will tell you what it needs. That's what's important. Take even my monthly experience, which I described in my diary. I too zealously undertook at the beginning to exclude all fats, including vegetable ones. So what? My body literally demanded them. Why know how much and what you need? Why do you need to know how many milligrams and in what proportion you need certain trace elements, if you can just listen to your body and be attentive to its wishes? Because everything is needed. More-less. Calcium is needed, magnesium is needed, silicon is needed, chromium is needed, polyunsaturated fatty acids are needed, vitamins in the full list are needed. And if you delve into all this, nothing good will come of it anyway. But if you learn to listen to your body, then you can not think about anything at all. Just go to the store and buy what you want. That's all. It's that simple.

Although I am not against vitamins. No. And don't mind supplements. Also no. But, to be honest, even despite the mountains of studied literature on this topic and the many articles written by myself, again on this topic, I, for myself personally, did not understand whether or not I need to constantly drink vitamin-mineral complexes. And in bioadditives there, in general, the devil will break his head.

Or here's a story with vegetable oil. If you look at the label of your oil, it most likely has a rather large "Cholesterol Free" sign on it. This inscription is now on almost all types of vegetable oil. What for? Why make this inscription on the product, where this substance cannot be in principle? And everything is very simple. When, at one time, a new trade mark “Zlato” entered the already formed vegetable oil market in our country, it, in order to select part of the buyers from competitors, began to aggressively advertise its product as free from cholesterol. And everyone began to buy this oil, since there is no cholesterol. What was left for other manufacturers to do? Either carry out mass explanatory work that there is no cholesterol in any vegetable oil, or - also make the inscription "No cholesterol".

This is how advertising makes sheep out of us. And why did Zlato oil choose this particular advertising move? And because at that time the fight against cholesterol was in full swing. Cholesterol has been declared enemy number one. I remember the butter story. He was so branded that he was given the most remote places on the shelves of the store. But in the foreground, all sorts of “healthy” butter substitutes proudly flaunted, the advertisements of which did not leave the TV screens at that time.

Now what? Butter is back in favor, and hydrogenated fats, which we were stubbornly forced to eat, turned out to be even more conducive to the development of heart attacks and strokes. And obesity, by the way, too. So now it is necessary, on the contrary, to carefully study the labels so as not to buy products containing hydrogenated fats.

And how many such stories have there been in the last twenty or thirty years? And who just did not declare the enemy of health. And eggs, and bread, and pork, and beef, and mushrooms, and milk, and cheese. Not so long ago, I read a book by Academician N. G. Druzyak “How to prolong a fleeting life”, from which it is clear that all evil is in calcium. And so, in all dairy products. How to live? Whom to listen to? How to make sense of this flow of constantly changing information? The answer is simple. First of all, listen to your body.

There is what you want. Eat simple healthy foods and listen to your body. And don't listen to anyone else. That's all. It's that simple. It's all so natural.

Yes, we are limiting fat. Why? It's not because fats are bad. Not at all. By the way, this phrase “bad fats” can be heard quite often. But there are no bad fats. Fat is just as important a nutritional element as proteins or carbohydrates. Salo, for example. This is a wonderful product. Great. It is a valuable high-energy product in its composition. You can take a small piece of bacon, a piece of bread, onion - and a full meal is provided during the day, for example, during hard physical work in the field. That is, in fact, these are not harmful fats. We are moving a little. Because fats are too high-calorie food for us. That's why we limit fats. Just because. And only for one month. First, it is our safety net. Secondly, a good practice for developing a new eating behavior: conscious reasonable restriction of fats.

Notice I'm not talking about grams. I don't tell you your daily fat intake. I'm not even talking about which fats are better. No calculations are needed. Just where possible, limit fats. Although we can not limit. If you want, you can not limit. This is the most insignificant part of this program. Fat restriction is already a rule brought in by my mind. And then, when something flashed in my head and I realized how to lose weight without a diet, there were no food restrictions. On the contrary, this was the whole point - not to limit yourself in anything. So if you want, you can not limit yourself in fats. Fats are needed. You can't do without them. All fats are needed. No bad or good fats. And butter is good, and vegetable. Everything should be present in your diet. But in moderation. What is she? Let your body decide. Trust him.

But not just like that. Be joyful, positive, vitally active. It is important. Be in good shape. It is important. Make your heart beat faster at least a few times a day. It is important. Feel your body perfectly slim. Get rid of your dissatisfaction. Love yourself. Praise. Holte. Cherish. It is important. Be confident. It is important. Rest assured that you can eat whatever you want. Be absolutely certain of this. Believe it. Trust that your body knows what and how much to eat. And eat. Eat whatever you want. Whenever you want. And how much you want. It `s naturally. This is so natural that it is not even clear why it is necessary to write about all this. Hungry - eat. Eat enough to eat.

It is interesting to observe the trends in the development of natural nutrition. More recently, books were published about the dangers of animal protein, where it was called the cause of "all troubles." Later, a raw food diet became widespread, where the cause of all adversity was put on the “shoulders” of heat treatment. Progress, as you know, never stands still. Now the raw food diet is not as easy as it seemed before: people refuse nuts, root vegetables, oils, mixing ... why?

Let's see what "natural" actually is? I also want to try to unequivocally answer the question of what kind of food is natural for a person. Raw food? fruitarianism? Or maybe omnivorous?

Naturalness

Let's first define the concepts in order to exclude the possibility of errors. By what criteria do we determine what is natural for a particular living organism and what is not?

Let's take a wild cat as an example and observe its development. Due to innate variability, with each generation we will receive variations in the qualities of her cubs: some newborns will turn out to be more “clawed”, others will be light, others will be reduced in size, etc. If a in these living conditions these qualities turn out to be more useful, then, accordingly, such cubs are much more likely to continue the race than brothers and sisters. As a result, in the jungle we will get cats that are dark, sneak up more efficiently and are capable of lightning-fast jumps, and lighter ones - in the savannah, endurance is already valued there, not reaction. So the formation of species is simplified. And we call the qualities acquired as a result natural in a given habitat.

In well-known experiments carried out by G.Kh. Shaposhnikov (1961, 1965, 1966), the population of aphids Dysaphis anthrisci maicopica was transplanted from the host plant on which this species (Anthriscus nemorosa) develops in nature, to another, unsuitable host plant Chaerophyllum bulbosum , and then to the previously completely unusable Ch. maculatum. After each transplantation, a “crisis” period was first observed, during which mortality increased sharply and variability increased (morphological destabilization occurred). Then the population adapted to new conditions: mortality and variability decreased, a new “adaptive norm” was formed, different from the previous one.

Individuals of the transformed population showed reproductive incompatibility with the original (control) population, which was not exposed to stressful conditions. More surprisingly, there is partial compatibility with another aphid species, D. chaerophyllina, which is native to Ch. maculatum.

So we can conclude that any features acquired by a living organism are the result of prolonged exposure to environmental conditions. And they are natural.

What makes a person stand out?

Man also has a number of features. Let's highlight some of them that make it stand out from its predecessors:

Relative omnivorous. Man stands out sharply from most mammals precisely in his flexibility with regard to taste preferences.
Significant effect of presence on the performance of the body
Loss of coat
Significant development of the psyche and, accordingly, increased brain size

Nutrition and lifestyle of our ancestors

And now you can try to imagine how our ancestors lived, that we have become what we are today.

But how then could the above singularities be formed under such conditions?

Homo sapiens was formed in conditions of food shortage, and huge competition for it. And not only from the side of frugivorous, but also intraspecific! Our ancestors had to travel vast distances in search of food, shelter from bad weather and predators. Today's sedentary lifestyle has nothing to do with the stress that sapiens were subjected to in search of shelter and food. As a result our entire circulatory and lymphatic system was formed precisely in motion. And without it, they do not function fully.

Let's think about what was the main incentive to "throw off" the coat? It is worth remembering that wool is an excellent evolutionary "acquisition" for many animals: it warms the body in the cold, weighs little, does not restrict physical activity ... But it has one significant drawback: it is not effective in water! But the layer is the opposite, therefore it is a “distinguishing feature” of all marine life, and its principle of operation is different from wool (it retains heat, wool does not allow cold).

We have been "tied" to the coast for millennia. The ocean and rivers were a constant source of food like shellfish, fish, crabs, etc.

Further expansion to all corners of the continent meant a serious expansion of the framework familiar to man.

Our natural diet

We were formed as frugivorous, therefore, all raw plant foods are the most valuable for a healthy person in his natural habitat. Fruits, berries, root crops, nuts, greens are our food.
We have relative adaptation to meat. Therefore, for a person, eating raw meat in moderation(especially marine life), eggs, insects and everything else that could come to hand during the thousands of years of formation - is natural. Meat in small quantities will not cause noticeable harm to a person. Evolution has laid in us all the necessary set of enzymes for its assimilation. (And even heat-treated foods are much better for us than other fire-treated foods.) This fact of the absence of harm from meat food with rare use was confirmed more than once by some raw foodists and practitioners. That's right, a human child does not have the instincts of a predator, but he does not have an innate aversion to flesh, this is an already acquired “skill”.
A person simply did not have time to adapt his body to cereals, dairy products and other late innovations, so the massive consumption of this food can be a cause of health problems.
Heat treatment of non-meat food is generally a novelty for our species and originated no more than 10 thousand years ago. Therefore, a huge number of modern diseases are rightly associated with its use.

The naturalness of the use of tools

Often, supporters of, say, fruitarianism “delete” nuts from their menu, arguing that in the wild, a person simply will not eat them, because the fruit growing in the ground does not naturally attract our attention, and we don’t have special “tools to dig it out. And nuts are very hard for our teeth, so they also could not take their rightful place in our menu.

And these are not random cases. All skills are given special close attention:

Animals also have cultural inheritance - for example, the ability to crack nuts with stones is passed down from generation to generation in some populations of chimpanzees, and in different populations there are different traditional methods of cracking nuts. And these traditions have been passed down and preserved in chimpanzee populations for thousands of years. And cracking nuts is not an innate behavior, it is learned in the first years of life, and it is learned for a long time and with great difficulty.

findings

Man is a fruit-eating creature in his structure. But he never did not strictly adhere to his "ideal diet", and not because meat is something indispensable, but because Every creature must always adequately correspond to its habitat and the current moment of reality. And she wasn't always happy. But it is precisely because of this variety of trials that we have become what we are today.

Total comments: 115

Animals also have cultural inheritance - for example, the ability to chop nuts with stones is passed down from generation to generation in some chimpanzee populations.
What about chimpanzees...
The otter collects sea urchins in the coastal waters, takes them in its front paws and swims on its back, holding the prey on its chest in front of it, then smashes the urchin shells on rocks or other hard objects and eats the caviar.
And how crows crack open walnuts! Mind is not stretchable.
Thanks again for the article. Made me think.

I agree with the conclusions about our natural diet, and sometimes I indulge in raw northern sea fish (in Norilsk this is not a wonder), but I am extremely distrustful of the theory of human origin from primates, or rather, I am absolutely sure that this is nonsense. This is my opinion, although no one asked him =)

I am extremely distrustful of the theory of the origin of man from primates
Doubt is good! But what made you doubt it? There must be serious arguments to suspect the lies of thousands of scientists from all over the globe who believe this fact. Share interesting.

By the way, the very phrase "man descended from apes" is a bit inaccurate. This is tantamount to saying that humans evolved from chordates or mammals. The man is the "monkey"! Or rather primacy
- I also disagree that they evolved from primates.
  Homo Sapiens - modern man - appeared immediately and everywhere.
  Moreover, a naked, hairless, weak appeared (compared with Neanderthal
  talz) and simultaneously on all continents. Appeared on the pike
  at the behest, at someone's will, at once SEVERAL RACES, which do-
  voluntarily differed greatly from each other, both in skin color and in
  the structure of the skull, skeleton, type of metabolic processes, but with all this,
  all these races had one thing in common - they were compatible between
  themselves and gave viable offspring. A new species by definition
  CANNOT APPEAR OVERLOW, without transitional forms and
  long-term process of accumulation and amplification of positive
  new mutations. Nothing like this in modern man
  OBSERVED. Homo sapiens took and "materialized" FROM
  NOWHERE. Not a single skeleton found older than forty thousand years,
  although, from this moment until the present, human skeletons are found
  everywhere 3.
  But according to the skeletons found, the RACES are clearly defined - WHITE,
  YELLOW, RED AND BLACK. And, at the same time, the “older” the skeletons,
  the more clearly their racial characteristics are expressed, which speaks of the original
  the "purity" of these races, which (purity) was preserved as long as these
  races did not actively mix with each other. So don't
  could be any one race (according to orthodox science
  -BLACK), which, settling from the Center of its appearance - Africa -
  ki, changed, and as a result, new races arose on its basis -
  WHITE, YELLOW and RED. The facts say otherwise.
  and it is not the appearance of new races, but on the contrary - a mixture of these
  races, the emergence of sub-races and their gradual convergence. Practically
  it is already very difficult to find representatives of an absolutely pure national
  nationality or nationality, due to the fact that there has been and is a process of mixing people, both different nationalities within one race, and mixing different races.
  
  There is a very interesting book by Michael Kremo "The Unknown History of Mankind". Briefly, there he cites archeological finds that contradict the accepted theory of human evolution and are rejected/ignored by followers of currently accepted views on human history.
  
  There is no esoteric. I advise

Very good article I have the same opinion about natural food. Unless I thought that people learned how to cook cereals a long time ago, along with seafood, but it turns out - no ...
By the way, in one of the books in your library, the idea was expressed that the farther along the evolutionary ladder a food is from a person, the more suitable it is for him (regarding animal products). Those. poultry is better than mammal meat, and fish is better than poultry, and so on. Unfortunately, the logic of this idea was not explained, but at that moment the idea seemed to me very true, based on my own feelings.
But now the confirmation has arrived, and even a completely logical explanation why this can be so

Recently I caught myself thinking that the hypothesis that aliens at one time crossed themselves and primates, resulting in US, speaking raw language, is easier to digest than the monkey.
At one time, the storyteller Shemshuk thoroughly took out the brain, then brought it back again. Fiction, but the impulse was given.
Trekhlebov, the Vedas, the cycle "Games of the Gods" and much more, but just read the epics, the Russian epic. It's a tin. All so-called myths look from a different point of view. Already one simple argument “There was nothing to do before like writing fairy tales for children” is enough to wake you up. And then in what style it is written, obviously not by grannies on a mound under the husking of seeds. Our officials couldn’t even compose a myth about a balanced diet, so rough sketches))) And our traditions are primordial ... Who will now say why a commemoration is needed, but everyone knows that you need to eat and drink))) Really monkeys)))
It doesn't even really matter what percentage is true. It's the little things... Awakening. That's what it gives. Understanding that we today are only a miserable semblance of the true us. The imposed stereotypes disappear, are erased. And it makes you feel that 2012 is not expected as a catastrophe, but as a time of change and liberation.
“Give me the facts, until I see and feel, I won’t believe it,” the majority will squeal. And so they gave you ... Keep your pocket wider. It has long been necessary to realize that we - stupid, sick, dark are much preferable, economically more profitable or something - it’s easier to zombie such people.))). And did anyone think that the most civilized state is itself interested in crime, sick people, junk food, habits, schools where they teach not knowledge, but the type of thinking, they educate not individuals, but social elements, etc. The entire industry, the entire state as a system, rests on this. We're making money to buy cheap, low-quality squiggles that just kill. In general, something suffered ... Enough for now, I finished ... please applause, flowers, autographs, fans

clap clap clap =)
And now in order...
“Doubt is good! But what made you doubt it? There must be serious arguments to suspect a lie of thousands of scientists from all over the globe who consider this a fact.
Thousands of scientists do believe this to be a fact, and it is just as true that thousands of other scientists disagree with them. Scientists are not an authority for me, because they are the same people as everyone else, and there are not many really smart and talented among them. Take, for example, the fact that "scientists" cannot understand why the bumblebee flies. It's just that not those scientists took up the consideration of this issue, it would be better to ask the creator of Mig, he would explain to them on the fingers. And to say that a person is an animal is incorrect, although the physical body can be attributed to the animal kingdom, consciousness has fundamental differences. Man has self-awareness (understands that he exists), unlike all, even the smartest of primates, and Darwin's theory of evolution, because it is precisely his hypothesis regarding our relationship with primates, has many flaws, and he himself strongly doubted it, and then he abandoned it altogether. There is a lot to be said on this topic, but for a long time official science has been very skeptical about Darwinism.

that thousands of other scientists disagree with them
Nope, I don't agree. For evolutionists, biologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists, the relationship between humans and primates is a fact. No contradictions. It is probably worth noting here that today's primates are not those from which Homo sapiens separated. Creationists with their theories have nothing to do with science, all disputes with them ended a long time ago ...

Man is self-aware
The ability to reflect does not "kill" the animal in us. Why is that? It's just a different mechanism of the psyche, which has a clear purpose. Without it, it is impossible for a species to evolve socially.

There is a lot to be said on this topic, but for a long time official science has been very skeptical about Darwinism.
This is absolutely not true! I don’t know where you got such data from, but in science the opinion is unequivocal!

Slav, today the theory of the origin of man from monkey ancestors cannot be unequivocally refuted. Yes, there are alternative theories, but they are based on too many assumptions, not facts! And that is why they will never be accepted by science.
- If animals cannot explain to you that they understand that they exist, this does not mean that they do not understand this. But a lot of people like to talk about "self-awareness" or something like that, but what they mean by self-awareness is rather the separation of oneself from the environment - the main cause of many of our problems. I completely agree about the state. Any system eventually begins to work for itself, and not for the purpose for which it was created. About 2012 - something serious will most likely happen a little later - in 2015 - 2016. But what is strange, I really expect it not as something terrible, but as an update, like a fresh breeze.
  - "If animals cannot explain to you that they understand that they exist, then this does not mean that they do not understand this."
    Here I completely agree! And, I think, any owner of a cat or dog will confirm this opinion. If animals do not extract oil, this only indicates that it is a priority for them to live in harmony with nature, but in no way about a low level of awareness.
    - Here I have a friend, a cat, I do not consider myself its owner. And if animals don't extract oil, it's because their instinct doesn't tell them to do such stupid things. This is where the difference between a person and an animal is, they are limited by instinct, and cannot argue with him, but we can, albeit in different ways. Some pump oil and pollute nature, others protect, but do it consciously!!!
      - So you think that the evolutionary superiority of man over animals lies in the fact that man can contradict his instincts, but animals cannot? It's hard to argue here. What if they can but don't want to? It is still impossible to know.
        In general, somewhere we all got into the wrong jungle. An article about nutrition, not about the origin of man
        And in order not to run twice: I also consider a person an independent species, and not a "wiser monkey." And scientists ... Once, in all seriousness, it was believed that rats are born from mud and slops, and all troubles are from witches. What discoveries await us in 300 years, it is even difficult to imagine. I believe that the truth, as always, is "out there somewhere".
        
        Eh, people ... Shera, I don’t think that the evolutionary superiority of a person over an animal lies only in the fact that a person can contradict his instincts, but animals cannot, since this is not evolutionary superiority at all, but something else, not connected with evolution, on my opinion. And "they can but do not want to" sounds very childish. But otherwise I agree with you.
        
        Yura, “Well, there is no scale of “coolness” in evolution, there is only more or less adapted to the environment.” Haven't you heard that just a person does not adapt to the environment, he creates it for himself !! Cities have been built, isn't this a fundamental difference from animals?
        That's it, now I won't write off topic either, otherwise it seems I'll start talking to myself soon

Yura, there is not a single fact that a person is a relative of primates, even current ones, even extinct ones, and those “facts” that some scientists cite are either rigged or erroneous. Have you read Darwin's On the Origin of Species and also his articles on Natural Selection? If not, read it.
“A lot can be said on this topic, but for a long time official science has been very skeptical about Darwinism.
This is absolutely not true! I don’t know where you got such data from, but in science the opinion is unambiguous!” But where is it seen that in science there are unambiguous facts and opinions? =)
At the expense of contradictions later, as there will be time to search, I will find and throw off a link, or several.
And creationists for me are also not authorities, I treat religions coldly, they have nothing to do with faith in my opinion. Religion is a power structure.
Edward, “If animals cannot explain to you that they understand that they exist, this does not mean that they do not understand this.” does not mean the opposite either. And yet, I do not belong to those "many people", I perfectly understand what it is.

Warbler, I said that scientists take this theory as an axiom for other assumptions and theories. If interested, I can provide a couple of interesting links where this issue is discussed by more than competent people. I'm not an expert, but for yourself I have not been able to disprove this theory. All the others I've heard are based on a huge amount of assumptions, so the scales are leaning towards the first option. Any theory is correct as long as it explains all the facts and does not contradict any of them. If there are facts that this theory does not explain, I will quickly reconsider my opinion until I find them.

I have not read Darwin's works. About the psychology of animals ... this is a very slippery "question". I read such a thing that Pavlov simply fired his assistants if they threw phrases in the style, "the dog felt that ...", "she probably thought that ...". Scientists avoid things that cannot be tested! That is why many theories are simply cut off, while the human-primate theory has not yet been “broken”.

Again, this is my vision of the issue, I will correct it with pleasure, or change it if you give me a reason. I’m already used to the fact that I often get cuffs here, then I’ll blurt out that “raw food is not a panacea”, then “about dry fasting”

I also disagree about the evolution and evolutionary development of man from a common ancestor. In general, the theory of evolution itself is completely erroneous, I can’t offer anything else in return, but it’s also impossible to believe in something that is not true, you need to look for an answer.
After all, what does Darwin's theory say about the fact that there is a constant and gradual transformation of some animal species into new ones as a result of natural selection. But what does that mean? This means that in nature there should not be established species of animals at all, there should be continuous transitional forms. In the present, we cannot understand what state the species is in, whether it is stable or transitional. Let us turn to fossils, there, over millions of years, we will definitely see how species have changed. This is where there is no docking, there are no transitional species, or rather, there is some small number of species that are classified as transitional, but they are still few. Basically all species are stable. Yes, changes can occur under the influence of natural selection, but only within one species, but this will not lead to the formation of a new species. For example, it’s unlikely that a person can grow a tail or jaws like predators again, no matter how long he eats meat.
Thus, it seems that animal species, including humans, arose relatively instantly, over several hundred years in the form in which they exist or existed, and do not change (have not changed) cardinally over the entire period of their existence.
How this creation of species occurs is not known, maybe God creates, maybe some kind of cosmic radiation, etc. lots of theories.
Now as for the person. I read one book about a scientific nature, where the author claimed that apes are degraded people. As proof of this, he cited the fact that when a human and an anthropoid ape were crossed, the child turned out to look more like a person. From biology, we know that the more ancient the gene, the more stable it is, which means that man is more ancient than the great apes.
One problem, scientists say that Man and apes do not interbreed, do not produce offspring. Indeed, I did not find the facts of crossing a man and a monkey. But I have found many folk stories and rumors of such facts. Of course, you cannot be guided by these things, but they also do not give you complete peace of mind. Also in history there were experiments on crossing a human and a monkey, the results of these experiments were either unsuccessful, or the attention was classified, and the scientists who conducted the experiment died. Which again brings to mind. Therefore, I can’t prove anything, as well as offer something instead of Darwin’s theory, but the fact that Darwin’s theory does not correspond to reality is for sure.
I am more impressed by the statement that man was created by man. This means that we initially have a special responsibility for the world around us, because the one to whom more is given from that and the demand is greater. According to Darwin's theory, it turns out that we are just animals that have reached a high level of development. Based on this, we begin to behave like animals with all the consequences ... Someone needs us to consider ourselves animals and not children of God. By the way, before that, people were kept in obedience saying that they were the slaves of God. Then, apparently, it stopped working and they came up with the Western world, led by material values, where people are also slaves, only thinking that they are free, and Darwin's theory became one of the helpers in creating such a world.

By the way, I also disagree with official science about the place where the first people appeared. If people originated in Africa, then it is logical to assume that it is there that the most ancient and powerful culture should be. It's not there, quite the opposite. Yes, you can and should remember the Egyptian civilization and the pyramids. But on the territory of Russia there are pyramids that are much older than the Egyptian ones, it’s just that for some reason they are not particularly spread about them. Pyramids are generally found all over the world, but in Russia the Saami are ancient. Also, the Saami also find ancient cities on the territory of Russia, built from wood, but they are also not covered. I once traveled around Altai, along the Chuysky tract. There was a place where many drawings carved right on the stones were preserved. One of the drawings depicted the process of conception at the cellular level, a drawing strikingly similar to pictures from a biology textbook. The age of the drawing is 6 thousand years BC. Ancient pyramids. The most ancient culture on the territory of Russia, yes, of course, historians tell us that our state is relatively young compared to European ones, some kind of Rurik came and formed the state of Russia in 862. AD and before that, we supposedly jumped through the pines. But that's why at the time of the formation of the Russian state in Russia there were more cities than in all of Europe taken together, historians for some reason do not explain. Recently I read the research of geneticists on this subject, they were looking for the most ancient human gene, and found it on the territory of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia. Here is the link to the articles
According to this, I believe that a person appeared somewhere on the territory of Russia in the white race, and not in the Negroid, blacks are a younger race of man.

Some consider themselves the children of God, but animals do not. From such beliefs half a step to racism. Carefully. In general, people, let's talk about species nutrition. It does not depend on our origin, but depends on the structure of our body at a given time. I agree with what is stated in the conclusions of the article. Anything that can be eaten raw should be eaten raw. Meat, fish, etc. in our time it is difficult to find high-quality and not infected with helminths, somewhere on a hike in the distant taiga or tundra. I also think the infrequent use of meat, even cooked, is harmless. But cereals seem to be harmful, about seedlings I'm not completely sure. I came to my version of the so-called warrior diet.

I will look at this, but to say that for any evolutionist, biologist and anthropologist the existence of evolution is a fact is too loud a statement!!! You yourself said that among evolutionists there are all sorts, but there are those who do not support this theory at all, let Lamarck, Darwin or someone else. It’s generally stupid to argue with this, but we won’t come to a common denominator, I already understood that.
I can also give you a bunch of links here, for example, and so what, it wasn’t scientists who wrote chtoli? Or are they refuting the theory and continue to support it?
A theory is a theory, not an axiom.

Initially, we discussed the origin of man, and you claimed that ALL scientists, without exception, believe that man descended from apes, right? And now you say "the origin of life, species, and so on - yes, all this is in question and there are no clear opinions." You seem to be contradicting yourself

Now you are asking to show you a scientist, namely an evolutionist who thinks differently (how can an evolutionist think otherwise? They just say so) I pointed out what you said about, I repeat, ALL scientists, not just evolutionists. And how do you want me to show it to you, a photo or an article? Do you think I won't show you? What if I say I'm a scientist? Natural selection is generally from another opera, we did not discuss it, and this is quite an obvious fact, since animals are dying out, this can definitely be proven.
I already have a feeling that you are ready to kill me :)

Slav, I probably said at least 3 times that this applies to paleontologists, evolutionists, biologists, anthropologists ... If I missed this list by 4 times, it’s only because I didn’t want to repeat myself.

Do you think I won't show you?

You can easily show an article by a creationist or even a "scientific creationist", I believe you. But you understand what's the matter ... it all has nothing to do with the scientific knowledge of the world, which has clear rules and principles that these guys absolutely ignore. There is not and cannot be a science about God, life after death, and everything that cannot be empirically confirmed.
- - It's more than banal. To the point where I feel a little uncomfortable trying to explain it to you. I am not a scientist, but I have the basic concepts of how science works. It is not difficult to get acquainted with them, rummaging a little on the Internet. And to make an unambiguous answer about what science is and how it is limited. Otherwise, the conversation turns out to be somehow of little substance.
    
    But your rationale that there may be a science of God or the afterlife, I will listen with pleasure. This is really unusual in our world .. if only because there are simply no such sciences and by definition cannot be. There is not one possibility to somehow test the hypothesis that there is a God or other worlds. On what then to build science?
    - Well, one, for example, I KNOW. Checked. Do you also WANT to check? Or just argue that it is impossible to check? A-priory? Then what kind of seeker of Truth are you?! ;-0
      
      The science? Wow! SHE IS GOING THE WRONG FOR A LONG TIME! And not then! ;-(She, like almost all sectors of our life, was too COMMERCIALIZED. As in the West, so in the East and here. EVERYTHING that generates income and is financed as much and as quickly as possible FIRST. only marginals like Greenpeace are interested in AEC, on which practically everything is laid down. In France, there are the most AEC in the world, and there are also the most protests against AEC. Only for some reason they are usually not heard even in France ... by educated scientists. It all came down to making terrible money. Science has become dogmatically cooler than the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Dullness. Dogmatism. Philistinism. Such is today's science. The revolution in it is crushed in the sprout. Moreover, it (with the exception of new esoteric trends) goes further and further from Nature, from man.I say this as a man who has completed the fur-mat and tries more than once to create (sometimes it works! ?) something new.

You have such an interesting discussion here that I can’t help but insert 5 kopecks. A few centuries ago, it was believed that the earth is flat, rests on 3 whales and so on. At the same time, Egyptian priests calculated a solar eclipse thousands of years ago. What does it say? About the fact that there is such knowledge that it is not desirable for the “crowd” to know from the point of view of those who control the “crowd” - the “elite” (the “elite” means those people whose analogues were the Egyptian priests). Because if this knowledge is available to everyone, then the crowd-elite system, which has existed for millennia, will break down! And the elite, oh how they do not want this. This knowledge also includes knowledge about the origin of man. I am a supporter of the opinion that we are far from the first civilization on the planet, according to some estimates, the fifth - remember at least Atlantis, the global flood from the Bible, the ice age, when our species was significantly thinned out due to global catastrophes. So significant that I think the survivors numbered in the hundreds, at most thousands, on the entire globe. Why did these disasters happen? Because then, as now, we are not developing along the path that our creator wants. The Qur'an explicitly states that man is the vicar of God on Earth. After all, it is obvious that with such an approach to nature as today, our species will not last long - a maximum of several centuries. Our population is steadily growing, we are cutting down forests (the lungs of the planet) while burning more and more oxygen, we are polluting rivers, seas, oceans (already the water in the rivers is hardly suitable for drinking), we are increasing the nuclear potential (Chernobyl, Fukushima), etc., you can supplement yourself. In the end, we will destroy nature, and without it we will not be able to exist on our own, everything goes towards this. And if we do not come to our senses, and in the shortest possible time, then another cataclysm awaits us, as a result of which our population will “correct” to the same hundreds or thousands of survivors. For the time being, we are not pulling on the governors of God;). As can be judged from the legends that have survived to this day, before the Flood, the climate on the whole Earth was not the same as it is now - there was no ice (google the Piri Reinz map), it was similar to the climate of the tropics. Accordingly, there was no shortage of vegetables and fruits. So there is no doubt that this is our food for me. So what's the secret then? Why hide all this? And that when everyone knows this and begins to live and consciously act in such a way as to go not towards a cataclysm, but from it, imagine what will happen to our entire culture, to plants and factories, to all science and technology, to all technosphere, banks and corporations, and in general all spheres of human life? Represented? Now, do you think this scenario suits those who own it all? The same thing, I also think it does not suit them, and that's how it turns out. So our task now is to realize what's what, and to act for everyone to the best of their ability to change the movement of society from collapse to prosperity.

It seems that we all forgot that a person is not the center of the universe, not its peak, but just one of its particles. Evolution is a process of movement that captures the whole existence. We are moving in this river of life in one single stream. Whatever we say about nutrition, people live and without it (pranoeds, for example). Any food is mainly considered by us as a source of energy. Let's learn how to consume energy without eating anyone (plants, for that matter, also a living organism). The main source of our existence is air, we won’t live even half an hour without it, maybe we’ll start to adapt? After all, if tomorrow our breathing mixture disappears, we all won’t have to evolve for long. Who has any ideas about this? All healthy food and fresh air.

Yes, I forgot to say, it seems to me that all of us have changed priorities. Previously, people had to eat (and even then not necessarily), dress and build a home in order to live. And we live. To eat. Dress and build houses, spending all our energy on it. Where are we evolving?

Decided to put in my 5 cents.
First of all. The feeling of a dirty trick did not leave me during the entire reading of the article. Yes, maybe not as brazenly brainwashed as in the USSR, but the feeling of “brainwashing” did not leave me. If my brains (my) were cleaner, then I would tell what, where and how.

And along the way, another thought arose. Well, here are reflections on what we practically can’t verify in practice (very few people remember past lives! ;-(). Whether a person ran like a monkey, or was created by God, a UFO. The truth, as always, I think in the middle.

The question is that ... There was a lot about the "natural" nutrition of a person, "that" food and ours were compared. Here's what I thought. NOW everything is changing SO FAST that .. Here are fast food products that appeared about 20 years ago. And now they already make up almost the majority of our food! ;-0 Or long-term storage products?! And what about the VARIETY of fruits and vegetables in our supermarkets?! I just found out this year that there are THREE (!) types of persimmons. And over the past 2 years, I learned about two (or three?) New types of (GMO?) citrus fruits .... Such a variety of products could not be dreamed of some 200 years ago, even by kings and emperors! And I will not say anything about the taste, weight and smell. Now we are somehow used to 2-kilogram carrots, 30-kilogram watermelons and melons. And each kilogram of apples also does not cause delight. What happened 30-80 years ago? Were there SUCH huge vegetables and fruits?! I would say that we have a variety of diets and the size of the products are increasing exponentially or in normal language - like an avalanche! Yes, and taste. A friend told me about NORMAL, i.e. wild apple. This apple was about the size of a walnut and was tart, bitter, and sour. QUESTION - what are we comparing then?! What about meat? Is it possible to compare the tender meat of our current cows, sheep, pigs with the tough meat of wild animals?!

What do you think is the difference between keeping warm and keeping cold out?
How is the fat layer in "all" marine life?
Polar bears don't know that wool is ineffective in water. Do you think our balding ancestors spent more time at sea than polar bears?

Of course, this is curious from the standpoint of the body, but one should not miss the approach to natural nutrition regarding the psyche. Since we are not animals and have a more complex psyche, we should consider how a normal person reacts to the “prey” of what is considered natural for a predator. A person who is mentally complete at his current evolutionary stage will not be able to calmly watch the murder, and even more so the brutal murder of a living being. What's more, do it yourself. I assure you that flayers trained by cruelty in factories are not fully mentally healthy people. Thus, perhaps even having distorted the body before consuming animal products (well, we should have survived earlier), we cannot use the term “natural”. Rather "forced". And it doesn't make sense to continue.

Maybe my opinion will seem offensive to someone, but still I will speak as a scientist. A scientist is not in the sense of a botanist, but a thinker. I read a lot of your comments here and I see one mistake, you are talking about huge time intervals that no one will check, most of you only know about such discoveries, but cannot check them yourself, we do not have the technology to check ourselves, and not trust some scientists.
Speaking about the topic, my offensive opinion, I do not consider a person to be some kind of autonomous creature that has achieved everything by itself, it is rather an experimental rat of some more developed creatures, and the experimental rat is not able to understand that they are experimenting on it or something else they are doing with it . The very fact that our opinions differ already says that we are not able to understand the truth, but only to discuss other people's theories and conjectures. A person has a technically very developed subconscious, with unimaginable possibilities. All the inventions of man and his alleged differences from animals are only his shortcomings. Speaking about the very topic of nutrition, I disagree with many things here, in some ways I agree with raw foodists. We can and can leave and adapt to other foods, but the result is obvious, and it’s not a fact that we chose other foods ourselves. We are sick physically and mentally, and we don’t know exactly what to eat and how to live, because there are no standards anymore, someone destroyed them or hid them, and most likely he lives according to the standards himself. I agree with Oksana, who is very nice to me, if she really is against the killing of living organisms. I can believe in adaptability, but evolutionary bullshit doesn't logically cross my mind. For those who argue, I will give an example - a domestic cat, they say it appeared two thousand years ago, I had to believe, because there is such an animal as manul, but which is not flexible like a cat and does not have reptilian pupils, and so the cat could not appear by crossing manula and reptiles, this is genetic engineering of incredible proportions. And today I see many new species coming out of nowhere, such as Ashera, which they directly say that they have bred. This is genetic engineering, which someone owns to perfection and lives on our planet and controls all aspects of our worldview. Someone will call me paranoid and schizophrenic, and I, in turn, will call him a fool who is not able to see the invisible hand of real rulers, whose goals and methods we cannot understand due to the weakness of the same brain or elementary ignorance. It’s your business to discuss, not to check yourself, because you won’t be able to check, even take a cell phone, you can check it only for those parameters that were thrown at you, and then only if you can find such equipment, but what about unknown parameters and types of influence ?
I just want to say that I don’t trust anything except nature, nature is the creator, even if someone cloned us, it’s still according to the laws of nature, observing the laws of nature, it’s impossible to make mistakes, the law of nature is everywhere - hit the stone with a hammer, according to the law of nature if it is weaker than a blow, then it will break, eating unnatural food, a person is not able to activate natural abilities, this is a fact that I myself have learned through experience. Then believe in the nonsense of normal nutrition and believe in your perfection, but there are specific people on the planet who know the enormity of all this and shout the truth to you, but you do not hear. The permafrost receded and part of the people migrated to the Mediterranean region. From hunting, people switched to agriculture and crop production. I started eating fruits and vegetables. The 2nd blood group was formed (people with the 2nd blood group have the LOWEST acidity of gastric juice, since the organic acids contained in vegetables and fruits contribute to self-digestion). And so far in Europe, the main blood type is the 2nd.
Some people from Africa migrated to Asia. They led a nomadic lifestyle and ate mainly DAIRY products. The 3rd blood group was formed (in people with the 3rd blood group, increased acidity of gastric juice, but less than in the 1st blood group). In Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, the main blood group is the 3rd.
As a result of the barbarian raid on Europe, the 2nd and 3rd blood groups mixed up and the 4th blood group was formed. People with the 4th blood group have normal acidity of gastric juice.
According to blood types, Peter D Adomo developed diets..
Another author (unfortunately I don’t remember) wrote: If people with the 1st or 3rd blood type begin to eat only raw plant foods, this will lead to stomach ulcers, because. increased acidity of gastric juice + organic acids of RAW fruits (vegetables) contribute to the oxidation of the gastrointestinal tract. Useful, and pathogenic, microflora, under such conditions, develops poorly, because. requires an alkaline environment, and does not meet the needs of the body. Thermal processing of vegetables destroys organic acids, so he recommends a raw food diet for people with these blood types only on fasting days - the time of fire signs (Approximately from March 21 to April 21 - Aries; from July 21 to August 21 - Leo; from November 21 to December 21 (before Catholic Christmas) - Sagittarius.)
A fairy tale is a lie - but there is a hint in it ...
Can be all the same there are Raw foodists with 3 blood groups? (I myself have one). Respond, please. Instill optimism. And then I really want to switch to CE, because. only when eating vegetables (defined, in accordance with those recommended for the 3rd blood group and while I process them in a double boiler for about 9 minutes (started from 40 minutes), I feel a surge of strength and energy.

Hello Yur. Thank you for your well-founded point of view on so many topics dedicated to helping our health through the pursuit of naturalness along the path of development. But let me disagree with the categorical position - who came from whom. In short, the phenomenon of evolution is not yet the root cause. Probably, I should have left my comment to your article called - Human Evolution, but nevertheless I decided here, since the discussion of the aforementioned topic by my comrades is wider here. And therefore, as an inquisitive person, I leave a link to a short message - Science does not want to know. Part 6. How Man appeared on Earth.
http://levashov.ru-an.info/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/%D0%BD%D0%B0% D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B7%D0%BD %D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-6-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA-% D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%B8% D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA/
I don’t expect at all that after reading this article you will somehow reconsider your formed personal worldview somewhere. This is just information - you either analyze it, or you accept it, passing it through your filters, or you dismiss it and forget it. In general, I would add, of course, the article, which I propose to read impartially to absolutely everyone present here. I would add arguments with which I fully agree, voiced by the White Crow, and more. But I will not, for the reason that straight-knowledge and what is happening to me (not to be confused with channeling or astral connections) can be perceived as absurd. Although there is a desire, it will not add optimism to everyone. At the same time, EVERYTHING is simple and extraordinarily cool

Editor's Choice

Career zigzag of rumas Rumas sergey nikolaevich position

Alexander Lukashenko on August 18 appointed Sergei Rumas head of government. Rumas is already the eighth prime minister during the reign of the leader ...

The history of the Incas originates in myths and continues in legends Mythology of Peru

From the ancient inhabitants of America, the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, amazing monuments have come down to us. And although only a few books from the time of the Spanish ...

What is a viber and how to use it on a computer, features

Viber is a multi-platform application for communication over the world wide web. Users can send and receive...

Forget everything Need for Speed taught you - Gran Turismo Sport review

Gran Turismo Sport is the third and most anticipated racing game of this fall. At the moment, this series is actually the most famous in ...

fourth pregnancy. Pregnancy. Signs and course of pregnancy. The body of a pregnant woman hurts and pulls the stomach

Nadezhda and Pavel have been married for many years, got married at the age of 20 and are still together, although, like everyone else, there are periods in family life ...

A letter to the army for a beloved guy soldier sample

("Post office"). In the recent past, people most often used mail services, since not everyone had a telephone. What should I say...

Sukalo Valentin Olegovich biography

Today's conversation with the Chairman of the Supreme Court Valentin SUKALO can be called significant without exaggeration - it concerns...

Asteroids of the solar system

Dimensions and weights. The sizes of the planets are determined by measuring the angle at which their diameter is visible from the Earth. This method is not applicable to asteroids: they ...

The largest and most dangerous predators

The world's oceans are home to a wide variety of predators. Some wait for their prey in hiding and surprise attack when...

New

Popular

Natural nutrition. Natural nutrition for humans. Man is a carnivore or herbivore

We do not live for the sake of constantly eating

Eat only when you are hungry

Water is the juice of life

Learn to chew properly

Learn to enjoy your meal

Eating is primarily a ritual

Correct meal times

Do not force your body with drastic restrictions

Keep your body clean

Naturalness

What makes a person stand out?

Nutrition and lifestyle of our ancestors

Our natural diet

The naturalness of the use of tools

findings

Naturalness

What makes a person stand out?

Nutrition and lifestyle of our ancestors

Our natural diet

The naturalness of the use of tools

findings

Total comments: 115