This is another "Sneak peek" preview of the re-writing progress as part of obligate major rebranding + entire manuscript overhaul. For context ~ it may help, that if you are new to my concept initiative, to consider reading the following pre-requisite readings:
Strictly WIP. And none whatsoever grammar-assisted with LLMs since 2015. Thank you for your patience.
Live-It-Forward, AW.
Before we even move forward, the most difficult question is always the most monotonous of all inquiring. "Why change?" If we have defined and understood ourselves what enough means? Through practicing Foundational Routines and reconciling our Baseline Experience/s, surely that in itself is "enough"?
Eventually Life, as it turns out awaits a long laundry list of things we can do wish to become - "better". As in - a prophetic evidence to advance or transcend ~ qualitatively.
"Better" is simply a holistic (mind and body) conviction that is desirable, comparatively or relatively to a control group. One proxy to encourage one to be better, however is to be different.
More importantly, to be "better" is not just composed of "one" "outcome" to be better at. After to get "better" one eventually has to distinguish layers upon layers of existential enquiring.
"Do you want to feel "better?" Better as in:
Were this This Author (AW) being asked for his "reason(s)" to be better at. He'd say:
Flattering? Not really. But are these above relate-able? Most definitely.
It is number #two that precursors everything else. Why? Because simply through intermittent fasting, at some stage apply as precursor somewhere to each of the above outcome/s. If one ably foregoes without food, even just for a day ~ one learns something else anew - tangible karma that is ~ that one is saved one (1) more day of food, and at the same time - conscientiousness, redemption and gratefulness that one still ably lives despite hardships.
No matter what reason readers can come up with - to be "better", qualitatively speaking, towards more and more specificity - sooner or later one unveils other "reasons" through time. It could be injuries. It could be auto-immune diseases. It could be saving a meal in favour for petrol, fuel and/or bills.
The first of two possible strategies is to examine and introspect (or retrospect depending how well acquainted the reader is in accordance to reader’s existing health pursuits, concerns and contexts).
Re-examined here through the lens of “SMART” goal criterion are as follows:
Nonetheless, it is to be stressed that SMART goal-criterion, is more of a retrospective share than it is prescriptive. Obviously This Author (AW) cannot and may not speak on behalf of another’s health nuance.It remains after all an instrument to assist in the decision making.
Once we are confident with our number that represents holistically or as close to what we believe is Baseline Experience, based from the number of calorie intakes we’ve tracked, we can then take the next step at Executing the adjustments, strategy, formatting, or way of eating.
Not exhaustive, This Book represents the following as examples that may seem simplistic enough to make readers possibly frown or question, but they are broad enough in return ~ that each addresses nutrition from all possible angle/s, in as far as non-therapeutic purposing and/or intents go.
Irrespective This Book “By Default” assumes its readers would, in some way, shape or form be drawn towards Standard Ketogenic Diet / Low carbohydrate.
One perhaps agreeable reason is due to its accessible immediacy at eliminating large food groups bearing the most susceptible concerns. Gluten, anti-nutrients, enzyme inhibitors to name a few.
Another overarching reason why This Book advocates, by “default” on Ketogenic / low carbohydrate nutrition is because the many (superficially marketed) diets we see today - more often than not inevitably necessitate eliminating or reducing certain food groups, be it macro or micronutrient properties irrespective if they are marketed as “diet or elimination agnostic”. In that vein thus one certainly can argue that any way of eating, at least when viewed a context of “meal to meal” concentrated event is inherently, a form of both macro and micronutrient manipulation exercise.
In addition to Low Carbohydrate eating, there are two (2) other way of eating that whilst appearing therapeutic, can be implemented. Specific Carbohydrate Diets and Low FODMAPs. These concern the topic of fermentable, yet less digestible carbohydrates ~ due to our widely and inherent enzymatic incapacity to metabolise these to conducive and meaningful contribution to holistic health.
These are likely to be advantageous amongst readers who are already nuanced amongst later years of stages of This Plan namely the Cyclical Ketogenic protocols and Intermittent Fasting for and upon which choice of carbohydrate discretions need to be scrutinized overtime as one gains further understanding over which food imparts more or less ~ burdensome effects on the the entire gut and digestive system.
Another “means” or facility to help base our decision, is to consider Nutrigenomics.
This Book prospects that, as pledge under its own Scientific Impartiality disclaimer (“Scientific Impartiality statement” on page 55) ~ recognizes that individuals deserve individual needs ; obligating help of a third party. This is where Nutrigenomics is encouraged, despite costly investment.
In our case here for nutrition strategy, Nutrigenomics helped facilitate this decision, at least initially, from a guided rapport and consult ~ through unveiling “Polymorphisms” (technical for mutations) residing amidst our genes, that ultimately govern protein synthesis and thereby consequent almost everything. From psychology to physiology Health(s) ~ be it “mental”, “gut” and “immunity”.
Typically, this service ranges from weeks to months depending on the depth or complexity of DNA collection service “packages” that is advertised (varies from agency to agency). Typically is is bundled hence “packaged” so that readers finds it easy to choose what umbrella of concerns. For instance “Foods Sensitivity”, “Psychological Makeup” , “Fitness Training”, “Stimulants Sensitivity”, “Drugs / Pharmacology Sensitivity/Allergy”, to name a few.
As far as “suggestive” insights go ~“perhaps”.
Whether or not this is, permissively, an end-all and be-all leads to many, many more question/s. That depending on readers sanity and patience - represents another layers and nuances for and upon which responsibility remains an increased onus on the readers ~ how should one “do” with all this information? Exactly?
Nutrigenomics consult typically simplifies complexity for a purpose as just that. "Simplicity".
The good news, is that this greatly consoles those not so well acquainted with general nutrition. Or perhaps easily anxious from all the (often very legitimately so) complications one typically had to sift through month(s) of self-research.
One (1) consult may be considered sufficient. “But is that it?” Is obviously, up to readers’ own pursuit. This Author (AW) generally would opt for “packaged” tests that tests more than one criteria eg. “mental health", "food sensitivities" to name a few.
Typically this involves the individual having to firstly research any nutrigenomics agency and/or practitioner available closest to them, and in what price range (should they are advertised transparently or upon contact) suits their budget.
Be forewarned that this is a significant financial investment. Anywhere from $500 (AUD) to all the way the thousand(th), are likely the norm amongst many practitioners, not taking into account of inflation and other sociological / access factors.
An entire consult (and service) revolves around the following timeline:
We've established and practiced our Foundational Routines long and frequently enough, to reconcile our Baseline Experience/s to fully realize what "enough" means; by tangibly accounting on what 'we've consumed day by day. However, at some stage we'd ask ourselves a boring but existentially meaningful question. Do we want to become "better"? Or stay stagnant happily, amidst this "everything-in-moderation" conception?
For readers anxious about complexity, Nutrigenomics may arguably the more "user-friendly" approach to help navigate readers on answering "what should I eat". But it might not portray a full picture as we've outlined in separate chapter on Nutrigenomics alone, for which subjectivities and nuances will arise.
SMART criterion on the other hand is a templated approach to help one canvas specificity. Of course as simple as it sounds, nobody can fully "chart" their destiny all-on-one page.
Either way - both simply represent readers criteria(s) on the how to find their own reasons to be better.
That concludes yet another sneak peek draft chapter! please leave your comments and/or thoughts. Live-it-forward, AW