View Single Post
  #113   ^
Old Tue, Jul-03-18, 10:27
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

"Healthy" anything.

The adjective "healthy" is attributed to the thing itself, not to its consumer. The fact that a thing is healthy does not necessarily mean it's also health-giving - healthful - when consumed. For example, a healthy diet. It's understood as a diet that gives health to the consumer, when in fact it means that the diet itself, the foods contained therein, is not sick or spoiled.

It gets absurd when we look at things which we think are unhealthful like meat for example. We have ample regulations regarding cattle health, but somehow all of this does not translate into a healthy steak or healthy animal saturated fat. Why do we even bother with cattle health?

In that case, a healthy cow certainly produces a healthy steak, but the steak is not necessarily healthful when consumed. We extend this logic with a healthy land produces healthy wheat, but this wheat is not necessarily healthful when consumed.

In the case of meat, we understand this distinction with grass-fed vs grain-fed. We assume that cattle is healthy when fed its natural diet of grass, therefore we conclude that consuming its flesh is healthful when compared with consuming the flesh of a grain-fed cow. We understand this distinction with other foods when we talk about whole foods vs processed foods. We assume that whole foods are healthy and conclude that consuming them is healthful when compared to consuming their processed (or altered) equivalent.
Reply With Quote