A few months ago, I embarked on an exercise plan that focused on weight-training. In order to maximize the effects of the exercise, I have tried to eat more and more properly. I sought out advice from trusted exercise-nutrition sources and books, and was actually surprised by what I was reading.
To summarize, it is obvious that the human body is designed to consume animal products like raw milk, meat, and eggs. In addition, the human body is also designed to consume vegetables and fruits (mostly vegetables). What is becoming more clear is that the human body struggles with consuming too many grains (of which our government wants us to consume 7-10 servings a day!!). So, while our body can handle significant portions of animal products, we are told to limit animal products because they are "high in fat". In the meantime, even though too many grains cause our bodies many problems (not the least of these obesity), we are told a "healthy" diet is eating more grains than anything else.
In terms of anatomy and physiology, there are three macro-nutrients: carbohydrates (which provide energy in the form of the simple sugar glucose), proteins (which are responsible for cell-building), and fats (which help viscosity between organs, muscles and other soft tissues, and stores excess energy). Of the three, one is deitarily dispensible: carbohydrates. The body can break down proteins and fats into glucose, if there are no carbohydrates available. Sources of protein and fats are usually high in other nutrients that the body needs, while most available sources of carbohydrates lack essential nutrients (this is why we have "enriched" flour). Thus, an individual that consumes only fats and proteins with a significant amoung of vegetables, can be quite healthy and meet all their dietary needs.
Here we have "science" competing against itself. On the one hand, the local health-food store will rail against animal products and saturated fats and the like, but on the other, will admit that animal protein is the most complete and most readily used by the human body. Similarly, on the one hand, certain groups (okay, the breakfast cereal industry) decry eggs as heart-unhealthy, and deadly, while others will acknowledge that while eggs are high in cholesterol, it is not all bad cholesterol and eggs do have a significant amount of good cholesterol (HDL), thus making eggs a healthy choice.
I have never been known as a "health food junkie". Sure, both my parents (well, my mom actually), and my wife's parents cooked at the least low-fat foods regularly (my wife's parents more so than mine). In college, I wasn't as particular as I could have been, but I wasn't bad by any means. As a married man, and as a father, money constraints more than anything have limited not only what I ate but how much of it as well. Still, I have had my issues with food choices. I can say with complete honesty that I have made excuses for my proclivities, using whatever research or study or whatever to ensure that I could continue my chosen path for no other reason than I liked eating the foods I was eating. When I realized what I was doing, inspite of what it was doing to my health, I was able to see the following very clearly.
The situation is a simple one: we, as human beings, are gifted with an intellect, and FREE WILL. We choose to eat what we want, in light of (or inspite of) what our bodies are telling we can and cannot eat. We will even attach ourselves to eating styles/preferences that we know aren't really good for us, but man do they taste good. On the converse, we will attach ourselves to a movement which rejects anything stated to the contrary and is illogical, simply because we want it to be true (or we like the company we keep with others who believe the same thing).
This is a consequence of a human's innate FREE WILL and intellect. We are able choose our own actions, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We are free to reject that which is good for that which is ill. We will defend our actions because we chose to do them, even when such a defense is illogical, false, or delusional.
Just has humans refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to food, they will refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to sex. Humans aren't born eating. They have to learn how to eat (babies learn how to nurse from their mothers...they don't just do it). As they get older, they choose when to eat, what to eat, and how much of it to eat. Eating becomes a matter of the will, and is subject to it. No man is going to eat that which he has decided he will not, nor is any man going to put down that which he has decided he doesn't want to. The same is true with sex. Sexual intercourse is a matter of the will, not instinct. Human beings consciously choose when and with whom to engage in intercourse.
In the world of human anatomy and physiology, the primary function of the sexual organs and their peripheral support systems is reproduction, which can only be done between a man and a woman. For men, climax is (normally) the release of sperm, which contain his half of the genetic code, hopefully to be united with an egg from the woman he is supposed to be with. For women, the stages of sexual arousal create a situation within her body to allow the man to enter easily and for most of the sperm to stay inside and increase the chances of her egg (if there is one) being fertilized. Climax for her actually creates a uterine situation that would push the sperm up further. At the same time, the body releases certain chemicals during climax for men and women that create a sort of chemical bond between the person they are with during their sexual experience. Sex, then is geared to procreating AND unifying the couple doing the procreating (seems like an ingenious way of getting the child's parents to stay together). Worth noting,though, is that not all sexual climaxes are pleasurable, so pleasure has nothing at all to do with the nature of sex. Climax, not pleasure, produces the "chemical bond" between partners, which is stronger than pleasuer. It doesn't matter who the person is with, why they are together, or what they do, the above is true regardless. All sexual acts have the same physiological goals: reproduction and unity.
Science, again, is competing against itself. On the one hand, many scientists want to say that a sexually liberated attitude is perfectly healthy. On the other, some psychologists are noticing a disturbing trend in depression and suicide rates among women who sleep around. Again, many scientists urge that homosexual relationships are normal and perfectly healthy. Yet, it is well known and documented that active homosexuals have more health problems, do not live as long, and have higher suicide and depression rates than their heterosexual counterparts.
Just like the situation with food, the situation is simple: humans are gifted with FREE WILL. It is this FREE WILL that allows us to engage is sex with whomever we want, when we want, why we want to. Like our apettite for food, we will often reject what we know to be true because it feels good for us. Like many people simply refuse to acknowledge that their dietary choices are influencing their health problems, many people also refuse to acknowledge their sexual choices are likewise detrimental. In ways similar to dietary partisans, sexual partisans will reject any and all facts that disprove their chosen appetite.
No comments:
Post a Comment