Friday, October 19, 2012
This topic comes up on Spark from time to time and I wanted to discuss it in response to some of the comments on my last blog:
I understand the sentiment of everything in moderation, it sounds so normal and - well, moderate. I'd like it very much to be true. But EVERYTHING? Really? How about HFCS, trans fats, chewing tobacco? The question to me seems to be whether something is addictive and or damaging in small quantities for everybody. Some things are only toxic to the body in large amounts, some in very small amounts. The level of sensitivity may be different for each individual based on genetics and early formative habits that affect gene expression. For me sugar is most definitely addictive, for my husband it definitely is not, although he may be negatively affected by eating lots of it, too. I am convinced at this point that modern wheat is damaging to everyone, just like nicotine, even for people who don't have visible symptoms and for whom it is not addictive.
Alcohol seems to be addictive to a significant percentage of the population but not to everyone, judging by the fact that many people can drink in moderation without the slightest difficulty.
I assume that almost everyone consumes something that would turn out to be less than ideal for their health if we had the perfect screening tools. We need to find out which foods are the most dangerous/destructive to our body and be committed to eliminating them.
The argument that everything is ok in moderation could be based on someone's experience that they are not negatively affected by any food, at least not knowingly, a lack of information about nutrition or the justification of an addiction that has not been dealt with.
I guess we all need to decide for ourselves what the answer is.
Or is there another, better reason to say everything in moderation is ok that I have missed? Please feel free to comment or to blog about it and link your blog here so we can all learn more.