One of the simplest methods for an individual to approach the question food and diet is simply to try to start eating various foods and to keep track of how they feel. But even this cannot be a completely neutral or fundamental starting place since virtually every individual has some existing notions on what foods are healthy for them, and what foods they want to eat which may make them feel good in the short term. But for the sake of argument, if we choose to assume a person has reached a point where they are satisfied in their technically understandings about the make-up of food stuffs and their potential impact, then such a person could move forward on various comparative diets for some given time. In this way the individual kind of takes on the role of self scientist where they can determine what seems of work for them and what does not. Diets of this sort may also include the so called elimination diet where someone tries to one or more initial food stuffs that they eat for some initial period of time, and then slowly add more foods to it. A person then tries to evaluate their symptoms, or how they feel, if you like. Now this self monitoring approach may have some additional monitoring of heart rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, and other metrics which might be available to most individuals. an individual can even have some blood test ordered without needing a doctors requisition. So this kind of individualist approach may suit many people or may suit some people during certain periods of their lives. On the upside it empowers the individual, and can release one form much of confusing debates about health issues, and the complications about seeking the right practitioner. It may also free you from the need to convince others of anything related to health, or any communal involvement to tell your story so that others can learn
One of the simplest methods for an individual to approach the question food and diet is simply to try to start eating various foods and to keep track of how they feel. But even this cannot be a completely neutral or fundamental starting place since virtually every individual has some existing notions on what foods are healthy for them, and what foods they want to eat which may make them feel good in the short term. But for the sake of argument, if we choose to assume a person has reached a point where they are satisfied in their technically understandings about the make-up of food stuffs and their potential impact, then such a person could move forward on various comparative diets for some given time. In this way the individual kind of takes on the role of self scientist where they can determine what seems of work for them and what does not. Diets of this sort may also include the so called elimination diet where someone tries to one or more initial food stuffs that they eat for some initial period of time, and then slowly add more foods to it. A person then tries to evaluate their symptoms, or how they feel, if you like. Now this self monitoring approach may have some additional monitoring of heart rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, and other metrics which might be available to most individuals. an individual can even have some blood test ordered without needing a doctors requisition. So this kind of individualist approach may suit many people or may suit some people during certain periods of their lives. On the upside it empowers the individual, and can release one form much of confusing debates about health issues, and the complications about seeking the right practitioner. It may also free you from the need to convince others of anything related to health, or any communal involvement to tell your story so that others can learn
Part of what we feel must be addressed is our so called evidence based approach to studying diets, any given diet will provide more healthy outcomes than another? As we alluded to earlier, we have concerns about the average Americans ability to be objective. It is not stated to be critical of America necessarily, or really to even assert that anyone is right or wrong in these arguments. For instance it is hard not to acknowledge that issues such as climate change. JFK assassination, and other such controversies tend to give evidence that people's conclusions are more based on how the world works in some sense more than taking a neutral and science biased investigation towards the facts surrounding the subject. Again we are not really suggesting anything sinister, other than attitudes and belief systems are likely more accurate predictors of what is seen as true by the average person than is a true dedication to objectivity. Having said that we do not know that true objectivity exists, and if we can make a case that a rough objectivity is identifiable it is still not being suggested as a panacea by any means. All we can do is open the door to the question of whether we can effectively outline a wide ranging scientific approach to answering medical questions. The issue is, for the most part, hopelessly entwined the question of' who' is an expert for most people. Yet, at least in theory, science lends itself to every individual for replication of experiment, the questioning of published results, and other avenues where this kind of individual examination does not require an expert. Experts will be featured and discussed widely, but so will strategies which lend themselves to a kind of independent, and perhaps objective, evaluation of the information given