Seems like an unusual title for a health blog entry, no? Let me explain...
Science and engineering are terms we hear used together frequently, and the reason for that is simple, engineering is basically the use of science to make stuff "that works". Technology is the result of science and engineering, and we are so steeped in technology these days most of it is effectively invisible to us. We take it for granted... until it stops working.
Which leads me to how science and engineering is relevant to health. As we know science is a particular method of obtaining information, with filters in place (the so-called "scientific method") that are intended to eliminate incorrect ideas about how things work. It's a very useful approach and it really really works, without this method for testing "truth" we would not be surrounded these days by sophisticated technology that works.
But it is not the only way by which we arrive at "true information", and this is where engineering comes into the picture. Can you imagine what an engineers job would be like if they had to stop to test every single mechanical function they come across in their work via the rigorous (and very time consuming) scientific method? There are literally thousands of these "functions" in even relatively simple devices, like an air conditioner for example. In an automobile there are hundreds of thousands of these functions.
The difference, one of them, a main difference, between science and engineering is engineers use "anecdotal information" all the time. They do not have to mount extensive randomized double blind studies with controls to trust "mechanical" information that is apparent and obvious. If they did, it's safe to say, we would not have technology at all. The so called "simple machines" (inclined plane, lever, fulcrum, etc) were not arrived at (many years ago) through rigorous scientific method, they were merely observed to be true, and used by every engineer since.
How all this science and engineering stuff affects health is pretty obvious too when we think about it. The problem is basically we have been led to believe all anecdotal information is not to be trusted, because some of it is affected by the so-called placebo effect. And there is truth to that idea, but it is not the whole story, which leads me to my point.
Why aren't we taught that there are appropriate and necessary uses of "anecdotal information"? Is it so we can be made into better consumers of processed foods and the requisite pharmaceuticals "needed" to then "fix" the problems caused by those toxic substances? (Use of toxins to cure effect of toxins... now that makes sense... not!)
Is "science" deliberately misrepresented by food marketeers, in order to obscure the obvious, and sell us addictive (and harmful!) substances, and make us life-long "addicted" consumers of those products? On a related note, I have a book to recommend, "The Pleasure Trap", here's some information about it... http://www.healthpromoting.com/the-pleasure-trap
Or is it because there is a certain "blindness" in science, an outsized (and inappropriate) level of belief in the idea we arrive at some fundamental and absolute truth about life and the universe through scientific investigation? When people say "science is the new religion" I think this is what they are talking about... we humans seem to have a need for absolute truth, due (Freud said) to our instinctual fear of death, which is another way of saying our deep and strong life force energy. So we "chase" science and mysticism in the pursuit of that "absolute".
Whether or not there is "absolute" loose in this cosmos is not the point of this blog however, it is the much more pedestrian (and central) concern - "how do we achieve and maintain optimum health and energy"...
So yes, we do have to find and rely on those mechanical functions that are blatantly obvious... what works... works. And yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat, body/mind are a single organism (IMHO), which means there is no escaping placebo effect to one degree or another. And that makes finding "what works" not only a process that unfolds over time, but also individual. We can however observe "what works" for whole societies throughout history, and basically trust those anecdotals. What we are seeing looking back over history, and more recently, is processed foods are designed for sales not health, but whole foods create good health (or we wouldn't be here as a species).
That much pretty much everyone can agree on. And IMO it is also safe to say those foods found in the (conducive) climates (that best support life without technological intervention, ie the warm climates) are those foods we are biologically adapted to, and the most basic causes of health and vitality, along with clean air and water.
What all this means to me it eat your fruits and vegetables boys and girls, in as close to their "source state" as possible... if you can pick them right off the tree, or out of your garden, and bring them directly to your mouth, by all means do so. Eat as close to "fresh ripe raw organic plants" as possible, for your health.
Which brings me to one last closing thought, a subject for a future blog... why is it we do not consider fruits as staple foods, when they are half the (fruits and vegetables) health equation?
