Words are powerful tools. Double-edged swords.
They can move entire populations of people.
If the political and marketing types need to change opinions on something, the terms need to be changed. The meanings of words can be subtly changed, or words can be made up out of thin air, which reframe the argument.
Take food. “Carbohydrates” and “protein” have no direct relation to our experience. They are concepts, which are backed up by good faith in “science”, or those who tell us that they are “scientific” and true.
But they are still made up words. How do we know this? Because they didn’t exist 200 years ago. And yet people still ate food prior to then.
“Protein” isn’t a food. It’s a ghost. Nobody needs “protein.”
I already pointed out once before that “protein deficiency” isn’t a thing. Nobody ever got sick from a lack of protein.
“Protein” is really just a hypothesis, a concept used to disguise the fact we’re talking about decaying animal flesh. A word that actively connects bloody flesh to things we put on our plates.
Its etymology, proteia, relates to “first principles”, which suggests to me that it was orignally meant to refer to blood, which makes (materialistic) sense.
The protein idea derives its modern popularity from an old experiment done in 1816 in which several dogs were slowly starved to death. François Magendie started with the observation that body tissues and some foods contained nitrogen. He suggested that the nitrogen of the tissues probably came from food. The nitrogen containing foods were called albuminous foods.
He then fed certain dogs water, sugar and olive oil, and they died. He fed other dogs meat, and they did not die.
The conclusion drawn from this canine-killing test was, presumably…
Oh, I don’t know. Who really knows? Who cares, honestly.
Nitrogen, protein, amino acids. Who’s to say that amino acids aren’t the same thing as those “white blood cells”, which turn out to actually be pus cells? (See John McDougll and Arnold Ehret for more on that.)
Modern science tells us that vegetables contain protein, too.
Seems to be a similar thing about equating, say, sunflower oil with pig fat, by calling them both “oils” or “lipids”.
It’s really just muddying the waters.
It’s deliberately confusing.
Here’s one of Arnold Ehret’s thoughts about protein:
“The error of high protein foods as a necessity of health, taught and suggested by medical doctrines to humankind, is in its consequences and in its effect just the opposite of what it should be; it is one of the main and general causes of all disease; it is the most tragic phenomena of western degeneration. It produced at the same time the most dangerous, most destructive habit of gluttony; it produced the greatest madness ever imposed on humankind; that is, to endeavor to heal a disease by eating more, and especially more high-protein foods. It is beyond possibility to express in words what the error of high-protein foods means.”
Protein is often related to muscle building, presumably as a legacy of some marketing push in the past. Yet there’s plenty of vegan bodybuilders and so on. And the strongest animals are herbivores.
My thoughts on this are that we should just keep it simple. Avoid animals as a source of food. Forget the words “protein” and “carbohydrates.” They are not clever words, they are dull words used by people to make an argument appear clever.
Call an apple an apple…
If you call it a carb, you might be persuaded that you shouldn’t be eating it!
Any thoughts, I’d love to hear them.