This is a very brief post inspired by the wide range of eating habits of the peoples of the world.
Take any region in the world and it will have its own indigenous culinary style. Of course there are cultures that tend to produce more overweight people than others: The Standard American Diet seems to generate poor health more effectively than the traditional mediterranean diet for example. However, in general, you find healthy and unhealthy specimens from most regions, whatever particular food they consume.
So, it can’t JUST be what we eat, there has to be more to it than that.
The Inuits for example eat practically nothing but animals; fish. The eating regime in most of India is vegetarian. Both populations contain healthy and unhealthy individuals. Both have people who are overweight and both have diseases associated with poor eating habits, mixed in with all the healthy, finely shaped people.
So, all I propose here is that there’s got to be more to it than JUST what we eat.
My hypothesis is supported by two basic empirical facts:
Most diets focus solely on what food to eat.
Most diets don’t get results.
Now every single diet comparison I know of will focus on the food itself, because that would seem to be the most obvious place to start. But is that all of it?
What if other factors are not insignificant?
Like how we eat, when we eat, how often we eat, what food combinations we eat, the rate at which we chew, how long we spend over the whole meal, the social component of eating, the time we eat relative to other actions of the day, the temperature of the food we eat.
There’s a bunch of variables here. Some of them no doubt statistically insignificant. But perhaps others less so.
So, that’s it. Just thinking that there’s probably a bit more to it than meets the eye.