What you need to learn, you already know (part two)

How much of what we learn do we already subconsciously know? This is a theme that I will probably continue returning to, because I think that there is a deeper knowledge than simply that which we make a conscious effort to figure out. This facet of it, in particular, has been a big interest of mine. I'm fascinated by food, in particular how it's grown and the science behind it.

But first, it's time to rant it out. Here's how this whole thing came about:

Yesterday afternoon, I was in my Wellness class like usual. The topic for the week is nutrition. The professor teaching the class seems like kind of a joke. The publishing company responsible for the textbook we use has a website for teachers with PowerPoint slides put together as a teaching aid. Emphasis on aid - as in, not the primary focus of the entire class. Sadly, that's not the case with this lady; at 2:00 on the dot, with no greeting besides "Alright, let's...", she proceeds to go through the slides and essentially read off the bullet points. As fast as she can. Brief exposition, no attempts to make the material at least somewhat interesting, and the frantic speed at which we're writing notes trying to keep up seems to be lost on her. When asked to slow down, her response was to "do the best you can." A girl behind me asked her if she could post the slides online, to which she refused, saying that "then people will stop coming to class."

I'm a firm believer in common sense. Garage logic, as Joe Soucheray calls it. As in your grade being dependent upon the work and time commitment that you make to it. At this point, I think this professor should be more of a believer in common sense than to try to use the fact that we have to come to class against us, particularly as it's near impossible to follow along once you actually ARE in class. She's there to present the information we need as best as possible; what we as students choose to do with the opportunity is our job. If the instructor places such a high priority on students coming to class, then she should make it a point to make sure we actually are getting what we need out of the time. If a student decides to not come to class on a regular basis, they're potentially shooting themselves in the foot, and they alone would be to blame for it. It IS college, after all.

End rant.

Anyways, the thing with nutrition. It seems the more research that scientists do on food and how it affects our bodies, the more it just seems like a waste of time. The majority of the newest and best information has simply upheld what it seems that we already know: that natural food is better for you than processed, and everything in moderation is the best way to go about a diet. Our bodies really do know what's good for them, if we actually listen to them.

This reemergence of 'natural' food has been somewhat of a trendy issue in recent years, thanks to films like Super Size Me and Food, Inc. In fact, author Michael Pollan's entire philosophy about nutrition can be summed up as this: Eat food (meaning not lots of high-fructose corn syrup and other engineered creations), not too much (everything in moderation), and mostly plants (meat is great, but a plant-based diet is much better for you)...

A pastor friend of mine would call that a B.F.O.: a Blinding Flash of the Obvious. Can it really be just that simple? I think so. Somewhere deep down, our bodies know what we need, even if we don't consciously follow those leadings.

More on this later.