The Normal Diet of Humans
In my talks with Dr. Shelton he made the remark on several occasions that there are probably many diets which would prove satisfactory for human consumption. There is no special diet to represent how humans should eat. (a normal or natural diet and) Historically one can see the difficulties, and the weakness of arguments, when reading the various claims of so-called experts on the vegan diet, the vegetarian diet or the mixed diet. All enthusiasts of the various dietary practices have attempted to prove their position based on a wide range of observations and especially on comparative studies.
Long dissertations on comparative anatomy, physiology and biochemistry have be written and published to support various dietary theories. Currently there are arguments about the paleolithic diet.
Hygienists too have been guilty of suspect arguments and irrational claims. In 1982 Natural Hygiene Press published, “Fit Food for Humanity”, based on an earlier presentation, “Fit Food for Man” by Arthur Andrews published in 1970. Carrington’s book, “The Natural Food of Man”, published in 1912, a comprehensive and remarkable book for its time.
I think it is legitimate to argue from the point of view of comparative anatomy, physiology and biochemistry, that this represents, in a limited way, evidence. However, to go as far as to say that these simplistic applications of the comparisons are proofs is a fallacy. Unfortunately there are people who one might legitimately refer to as extremists who believe that there is more or less a specific diet which is suitable for all human beings. Some people who call themselves fruitarians, who consume predominately raw food much of it fruit, although from my observations they do tend to eat a number of foods that would be classified as vegetables. I must say at the outset that I do no consider the all fruit diet desirable or adequate. However, I do not wish to condemn the all raw fruit and vegetable diet.
It is also a common finding that many who write about natural diet, natural living or whatever, repeatedly refer to natural law and while one appreciates that they do not refer to any legal enactment when they use the word law, but they use the word as we might refer to the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, etc. The latter laws don’t represent any god given principle but rather the observations and precise measurements of certain uniformities observed in nature which can be expressed in mathematical terms. The laws of life, that the hygienist speaks about, must be qualified because they are not capable of being reduced to mathematical theorems or mathematical equations, so in this respect the so-called law is merely a claim made on the basis of belief and belief without concrete evidence. Regrettably, the use of the word “law” seems to provide the necessary emphasis to elevate the claim to authority. When we refer to Natural Law it implies that things could not be otherwise and that there is no argument.
A “law” is only a descriptive statement explaining observed uniformities in Nature. To be meaningful it must be capable of mathematical expression. Otherwise the relationships it relates to cannot be compared or correlated. As someone once said, “Science is measurement”. Source : HealthDarts