Theory of balanced nutrition: advantages and disadvantages
Last reviewed: 23.04.2024
All iLive content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure as much factual accuracy as possible.
We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to reputable media sites, academic research institutions and, whenever possible, medically peer reviewed studies. Note that the numbers in parentheses ([1], [2], etc.) are clickable links to these studies.
If you feel that any of our content is inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise questionable, please select it and press Ctrl + Enter.
The theory of balanced nutrition is distinguished by the rigor and consistency of its axiomatics. It is the basis of all modern concepts of nutrition and has allowed to give a scientific explanation of the needs for food on energy, plastic and its other components.
The theory of balanced nutrition served as the basis for modern food technology and made it possible to develop practical measures related to food resources and nutrition. It is based on industrial, agrotechnical and medical developments, which are largely based on the idea that improving the properties of consumed food can be achieved by increasing the amount of nutrients against the background of a decrease in the proportion of ballast.
In the classical theory, the alimentary tract is considered to be an almost ideal chemical plant operating under non-ideal conditions due to some raw material defects (for example, contamination of food), and also because bacteria are present in the gastrointestinal tract. In this case, there are special systems that provide protection from the competition of bacteria for the possession of nutrients, from the penetration of bacteria into the internal environment of the body, from the toxic effects of bacteria, from invasions, etc. In the new theory of adequate nutrition, the notion that the bacterial flora plays a dual role - on the one hand, a competitor of the macroorganism for nutrients and a potential pathogen, on the other - an important symbionte and supplier of secondary nutrients.
Among the fundamental shortcomings of the classical theory should be attributed to its anthropocentric nature, that is, the focus on the solution of applied problems of human nutrition, more precisely, the tasks of rational nutrition of humans in conditions when he himself is not able to establish his food needs quite clearly. In other words, this theory is not biological enough and evolutionary. Interestingly, within the framework of the classical theory of nutrition, there are no explanations for the sharp differences in the composition of rations traditionally used by the population of different climatic zones. For example, a rational diet based on the theory of balanced nutrition and suitable for Europeans can not always be used to feed the northern peoples, whose food ration consists mainly of meat, fat and fish. Nevertheless, this diet does not cause any harmful effects. Even more amazing is the predominantly plant food of most of the inhabitants of India and many Negro tribes. In the diet of the latter, the total amount of protein does not exceed 5-8%. Differences in the consumption of minerals by different peoples are also striking. (In this case, we consider the physiological needs of the organism in the corresponding salts.)
Classical theory is also unsuitable for explaining the regulation of nutrition in most groups of organisms with different types of food and with various mechanisms for processing food based on the principles of self-regulation.
Thus, during the greatest success of the theory of balanced nutrition, its crisis intensified, which led to the formation of a new theory of nutrition, which we called the theory of adequate nutrition. At the present time it is shown that this theory allows solving a number of difficult theoretical and applied problems, before which traditional approaches were powerless.
Conclusions
This article briefly reviewed the classical theory of nutrition, often called the theory of balanced nutrition. This theory from the very beginning began to be formed as anthropocentric, and many of the most important biological and evolutionary approaches of general importance were left out and not taken into account by it.
[