Power for all: the principles of power selection and menu design

What is ideal food? Contemporary Berthelot brilliant writer and fellow at the French Academy of Anatole France twenty years before the interview, Berthelot put into the mouth of one of his heroes the words "ideal food". The creation of an ideal food seemed important for many reasons, and above all, due to the fact that a number of diseases arise from malnutrition. For example, diabetes, diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, liver disease and atherosclerosis. Defective nutrition is also the cause of a violation of the physiological and mental development of man.

For a long time it seemed that the classical theory of balanced nutrition is quite perfect. However, by the end of the 1970s it became obvious that a fundamentally different theory was needed to describe the processes of nutrition and assimilation of food. Moreover, the new theory of adequate nutrition includes notions, methods of analysis and evaluation that were not used earlier, so this theory was seen as a revolution in science. The theory of balanced nutrition is one of the aspects of a more general theory of homeostasis. These processes are physiological.

Later, the theory of ideal nutrition was formed. The idea of an ideal food, entirely composed of the necessary substances in their optimal proportions, was the most attractive. At the same time, it should be noted that the idea of an ideal diet ultimately led to a revision of the views not only on ideal food and ideal nutrition, but also on the classical theory of balanced nutrition.

One example of the negative consequences of malnutrition is overeating, which results in overweight and obesity. But, aside from the merits, this theory has a number of shortcomings.

At the present time, a new theory of adequate nutrition has been formed, which differs significantly from the classical one. Modern ideas about digestion and nutrition differ significantly from the relatively simple scheme that was adopted earlier. Ideal nutrition is primarily the nutrition of an individual in accordance with his age, constitution, major and secondary diseases. The basic idea of ideal food is to provide the best possible manifestation of all the possibilities of the body and its optimal functioning.

Some types of food are favorable for high physical exertion, in the same cases when there are significant psychological stress, another diet is needed. Moreover, changes in the emotional background also require appropriate changes and diet. There are also significantly different types of nutrition in hot and cold climates, and differences in diet of northern and southern peoples can not be reduced only to geographical factors.

The ideal diet, made for one person, taking into account its characteristics - sex, age, lifestyle, may be unacceptable for another. For example, it is commonly believed that low-calorie foods should be consumed to increase longevity. At the same time, even in the elderly, intensive work requires a fairly high level of nutrition - foods rich in carbohydrates, fats and proteins of animal origin.

The authors hope that the book will help the reader determine the benchmarks in choosing the most suitable type of food, find their "golden mean", their ideal diet.

[1], [2]

Some general principles of building power, selecting and making menus

The choice of the menu depends mainly on the general culture and developed taste of the person and, in particular, of course, on his culinary culture and knowledge.

At the same time, it is necessary to dispel categorically the delusion that the material factor plays a decisive role in the choice of a good, culinary literate menu. As the whole history of culinary development shows, no wealth, no material possibilities save a person uncultured from improper food, from a complete inability to determine for themselves a normal, tasty, healthy menu.

Just the opposite. It is the rich who are the object of ridicule in the world literature in connection with their inability to eat properly and the inability to determine an acceptable and truly delicious menu. In this respect, Mitrofanushka from Fonvizin is indicative, and the Russian merchant class in A.N. Ostrovsky. Always to illustrate the lack of culture, it is not by chance that a character is selected who, despite the possibilities, does not know how, can not define a normal menu.

The effectiveness of nutrition in a huge degree depends on its culinary diversity, and not on the number of calories or proteins in foods. The purpose of human nutrition is to maintain an active life, to ensure a high tone of the emotional state, and all this is created largely by the "joy of eating", not at the expense of its quantity or its special nutritional value, but due to its diversity, uneatenability, surprise , its taste, aroma and other not quantifiable calculus concepts.

Hence, it is clear that the problem of making menus is, on the one hand, extremely individual, personalized and should be decided by each personally personally, and on the other hand - any personal menu depends on time, era, features of national and international cuisine of the time, from all culture and its level in this historical period. That is why the right menu, effective for its nutritional and nutritional needs, must meet both the personal taste of the person and the time (era) in which he lives. And this is not easy.

Consequently, the very use of an ordered menu is already elitist. This, of course, does not mean that only the elite use the cultural menu. Just the modern elite, deprived of a common culture, coming from mud to riches, gives numerous examples of the fact that it "knows how" to eat expensive, richly, to use delicious dishes, but its general menu is random, chaotic, accidental and subject to changeable foreign fashion. In short, the elite's menu can be quite uncultured. And in the culinary respect even mediocre.

One of the features of the menu is that it is recorded in writing. And this is also a sign of culture and a guarantee of responsibility. The menu is a serious culinary document, it not only fixes the nutrition program of the person for the near future, but also preserves the data on human nutrition in the past, gives a rare opportunity to compare what our ancestors ate and what we eat today, which of us more successfully solves the eternal problems of proper nutrition.

In a clear written form, the menu appears already in the middle of the XVII century, with the French court of Louis XIV, but their rudiments undoubtedly existed before, in Italy and in France, verbally the orders of various monarchs to their court cooks.

The accumulation of written menus, their comparison, change helped to develop formal rules for compiling perspective menus and in general principles for building menus.

From the very beginning, that is, at the end of the 17th century, two fundamental principles were put forward, which have retained their significance to this day.

The first can be called natural, or natural. It is based on the mandatory seasonal change of food products of animal and vegetable origin, which was inevitably reflected in the daily menu. So, vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, as well as feathered game were clearly products strictly confined to a certain season, by the time of the year, sometimes just by a certain month, and therefore should not be served in an unusual, in an unseasonable time for them, especially in fresh , a natural form.

Even meat of poultry, livestock, which, although it could be used throughout the year, was also largely confined to certain seasons, both for religious and partly for natural reasons.

Cattle slaughter was produced most often by the autumn, that is, during the period of maximum weight gain, fatness and, consequently, the best quality of meat, and therefore even this category of food was also partly seasonal.

Even fish, both freshwater and marine, were also subject to seasonal migrations due to spawning, and therefore its catching or its appearance in certain places of rivers or seashores were also clearly tied to a specific time.

Of course, as the development of methods for preserving and preserving (soldering, drying, pickling) various food products, the range of their application throughout the year expanded, overcoming the narrow seasonal framework. However, in culinary terms, it was still a different food material: salty, pickled, soaked, marinated, dried, not fresh, steam.

And it was very important. For the variety of the food menu is characterized primarily by its culinary variety, and not just the food. If today you eat a dish of fresh fish, then you use the next day also fish, but in salty or smoked form can not be considered a repetition of the same food material, because in the culinary respect this food will be quite different - both to taste and nutrition, and the presence in it of different components, and most importantly - by its emotional impact.

When the seasonal frames were no longer sufficient to regulate the variety of food, or lose their clear boundaries at certain periods of the year, the second menu-making principle, which was artificially formal, also followed the consecutive preservation of diversity in the menu.

This variety could (and should) be of two kinds.

First, it was required to preserve a variety of food raw materials, that is, do not repeat the same products in different dishes of one lunch or in the menu of one day. So, for the meat dish should follow a fish or vegetable, for a dish of game - dough or egg, mushroom, etc. Secondly, it was necessary to observe a purely formal variety of composition, character and even the appearance or composition of individual dishes on the menu.

So, for a heavy (flour or meat, fatty) dish should have followed the lung (from fish, poultry, vegetables, fruits). For a light dish or sauce was to follow a dark sauce, for a salty - a fresh dish or vice versa - for fresh salted or spicy, for a neutral - spicy, etc. In a word, change, change, variety had to be in a good kitchen, in culinary right menu, reign in everything, and in the essential, and in the outer, in the visible.

Of course, a consistent, careful combination of all the above principles of making the menu made it possible to create an extremely diverse table, as well as unique long-range menus for weeks and months in advance, and sometimes for the entire annual cycle.

Of course, all this was practiced and could be carried out only in the kitchen of the ruling classes, behind the palace, monarchist table, where there were special people who were watching the drawing up and implementation of such carefully adjusted menus.

But gradually the general principles of changing dishes, food variety of nutrition began to penetrate in France and into the aristocratic and then middle-class (bourgeois) environment and eventually gained the understanding and sympathy of the entire French people, not excluding the peasants and workers. For, in essence, the importance of a variety of food is quickly recognized by any person in practice, as this directly leads to an increase in his life activity, to the preservation of his efficiency. And to whom these qualities are more important than to a working man who is afraid of losing his health much more than a rich man or any wealthy person?

From the end of the XVIII century in the development of a variety of menus, French restaurants began to show special activity. Each of them (and there were hundreds in Paris alone!) Tried to create a special, unique, branded menu, differing in all respects from the menu of other, competing restaurants. This led to the fact that the menu of restaurants, which differed in each restaurant, ceased to change and became more or less stable, sometimes for years, for each restaurant tried to cultivate its special, refined, nowhere else meeting repertoire of dishes.

So cooking, and especially national cooking, is not a "stomach problem" at all, about which the supposedly "enlightened" person has nothing to puzzle himself (let the cook care about it!), But the heart problem, the problem of reason, the problem of restoring the "national soul ". And this is not an exaggeration, but a reality.

Vegetarianism as a fashionable trend in nutrition came to Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries from England, partly through Germany and the Baltic States, and as a whole, like the typical Anglo-Saxon intellectual fashion, was alien to Russian culinary traditions.

However, even then, and later, including up to the 90s of the XX century, it was often possible to meet the opinion that as if the propensity to vegetarianism is almost an original feature of the Russian people.

All these beliefs were based either on ignorance of the facts from the history of alternative nutrition and Russian national cuisine, or on ignoring the distinction between vegetarian and lean table and on substituting the concept of "lean cuisine" with the concept of "vegetarian cuisine".

However, a vegetarian table should not be confused with lean. For the composition of vegetarian and lean food is not only not the same, but also these concepts are deeply different and historically arose in Europe in completely different epochs, separated from each other by two thousand years. It is clear that the ideas underlying the creation of these two food systems could not be similar, let alone identical and equal, for they belonged to people of different eras with different psychology and logic.

The basis of the fasting table lay and lies Christian dogmas about the sinfulness of man and the religious principles stemming from them that the food for a considerable time of the year should not include meat and fats, which, by making the joy of life and communicating energy and sexual urges, are only relevant on rare holidays or can be distributed in a limited and sparse on working days, that is, occupy a much smaller part of the calendar year. This approach was associated with the historical, social and class role of the Church, and also, to a large extent, with objective historical circumstances: the lack of conditions for long-term storage of meat and animal fats in Mediterranean countries, where Christianity arose and spread. The hot climate forced time "meat days" only to the periods of slaughter of cattle, which existed since ancient times. Thus, the lean table of the Orthodox, Monophysite, Coptic, Catholic and other Christian churches was defined in its food repertoire from the very beginning of their activity exclusively by a religious-natural calendar, where some mandatory religious prescriptions, although artificial, were made with a constant glance at the real natural conditions of the countries of the Mediterranean and the Near East.

Excluding from the lean, that is, the most commonly used, table meat, animal fats, milk, cream butter and similar perishable products, the Church at the same time allowed daily, that is, fasting, food with those animal products that did not need storage and could appear regularly in fresh form or be produced occasionally by small, quickly realized for the needs of food batches depending on specific needs. Such products were fish, shrimp, crawfish and even locusts (acridas), as well as all edible plant species.

The centuries-old experience of the peoples of the Mediterranean confirmed that in the climatic conditions of this region man could maintain an active life, eating for most of the year (about two-thirds) with fish, vegetable oils, fruits, berries, including nutritious ones like grapes, olives, figs, dates , and a smaller part of the year - meat, milk and egg food. For the Mediterranean and Asia Minor area, which did not know the winter, it was normal. Posts began to create a problem for the population of Central and Northern Europe, with their harsher climate, about 500-800 years after the emergence of Christianity, when it began to spread among the Germanic and Slavic peoples.

As for vegetarianism, this food system originated in Europe completely artificially in the middle of the XIX century and was initially propagated only in England during its rapid industrial and colonial development. It proceeded entirely from other principles than those on which the lean table was based.

The leading idea of vegetarianism was the moral principle that it was impossible to kill, kill all living things and especially shed the blood of animals, "our smaller brothers", and therefore, they can not be fed.

This moral principle was also backed by purely medical considerations, since they acted more convincingly on a European, especially an educated person. Physicians of the time, that is, the second half of the XIX century, claimed that meat contains not only urea, salts and other "harmful substances", but, most importantly, the meat of the killed animal immediately "cadaveric decay" and it becomes , thus, "carrion", and therefore contributes to various ailments of man.

Thus, based on moral and medical principles, vegetarians exclude from the food of people all animals "slaughter" products, that is, meat of domestic animals and birds, forest game, fish of the seas and rivers, crustaceans, mollusks, soft-bodied, but at the same time very it is not medically acceptable to eat eggs, milk, dairy products, although they are also of animal origin and consist of almost the same components as meat.

English followers of vegetarianism largely borrowed their ideas from the ancient Indian Vedic religion. Many Englishmen, who had been serving in the colonial administration in India for many years, were impressed with the "sacred cows", which roamed freely through the streets of Hindu cities, as well as other animals - peacocks, pheasants, guinea fowls, which no one tried to kill, fry and eat, although hungry, poor, impoverished people in India lacked.

For India, with its diverse and lush tropical flora abounding in a mass of edible and nutritious plants, vegetarian food was, especially in ancient times, during gathering, normal, natural, and Vedic religion and culture, based on the belief in the transmigration of the human soul into animals and vice versa, prevented the killing of animals from moral and religious considerations.

In a damp, industrially smoky, closely populated Britain, where the traditional animal food (meat and fish) since ancient times was, and the national dishes were steak or roast beef with blood and heavy pudding on beef fat, as well as pork bacon, yorkshire hams etc., etc., vegetarianism was a peculiar and largely sanctimonious reaction of the bourgeois intelligentsia to an industrial revolution and colonial prosperity, and, most importantly, to the subsequent deterioration of the economic situation of the masses and small-scale znyh layers metropolis, appreciation of traditional meat diet and increased towards the end of the XIX century mass epidemic and chronic diseases.

Under these conditions, for a part of the bourgeois intelligentsia, largely unrelated to the successes and prosperity of industry, the preaching of vegetarianism seemed a panacea for all the pernicious tendencies of the era, a guarantee of an abstemious, healthy life and an appeal to the puritanical ideals of the "golden past."

In fact, providing yourself with good, varied vegetarian food was not such a cheap pleasure at all, and could only be achieved with the use of many colonial products, and therefore became available only to the bourgeoisie. In the "popular version", vegetarianism was reduced only to hypocritical attempts to "scientifically" doom the working class to food with potatoes and oatmeal and to call "voluntarily" and "for its own sake, for the sake of health", to give up hams, steaks, trout, crayfish, game and Scottish herring.

Meanwhile, over the years, the health value of the vegetarian table has been strongly questioned. Especially harmful was the increased and systematic use of eggs. Even the combination of egg and milk dishes was not so harmless for health, as it was theoretically seen at the beginning. (After all, both are products that are "bestowed by nature itself!")

Nevertheless, vegetarianism began to spread like "English fashion" in the late XIX - early XX century throughout Europe and did not leave its influence on Russia. Here he was promoted by Leo Tolstoy himself, who advocated the introduction of vegetarianism into the nutrition of alternative bottoms as inherent in supposedly healthy people's food, and proceeded from Christian-ascetic considerations, as well as from the belief that moral perfection would ultimately lead to social changes .

Vegetarian restrictions are unacceptable and painful. This was especially evident when creating vegetarian simple dining rooms with their three or four kinds of soup soup (borsch - beetroot, cabbage soup, gaber-soup - oatmeal and potato soup), and also with three kinds of cereals: buckwheat, millet, pearl barley. Hundreds of Tolstoy hangers of this type, created at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries for the starving population in Russia, could only exist temporarily, as first aid stations that save people from starvation. But as constant points of a normal alternative food they could not stand competition even with the seedy provincial taverns, with their poor, low-quality, unhygienic, but still more varied meat and fish food: cheap sausage, corned beef, herring - and their tea, strictly forbidden and forever banished from vegetarian cuisine as a "harmful potion" along with coffee.

Vegetable food gives a much greater burden to the human digestive tract, and if it begins to prevail or even becomes absolutely dominant in nutrition, the load on the circulatory system and cardiovascular activity increases accordingly. The fact is that the calorific value of a number of plants is extremely low, and they need to be processed a lot, large volumes to cover the energy needs. So, according to the calculations of the same Tsiolkovsky, 4 kg of bananas correspond to 1 kg of flour and only 87 g of meat. Hence, it is clear how much the stomach load increases, and then the cardiovascular system, if we want to equivalently replenish the huge energy needs of our organism at the expense of only vegetative food. Thus, one-way supply of useful plants can after a certain time hit our health on the other hand: the cardiovascular system will suffer not from cholesterol, but from the most banal depreciation.

Hence it is clear that the main danger lies in a monotonous diet, no matter how monotonous this may be - "useful" plants or "unprofitable" meat. That is why a healthy menu, a healthy food repertoire will make up any set of dishes where the principle of diversity, both culinary and flavor, is clear and well-defined, that is, there is meat, fish, vegetable, and other food in its hot, cold, salty, kvasshenom, jerky and other form, and the food spiced with spices, different in taste - and fresh, and sweet, and sharp, and sour - in a word, extremely diverse in terms of products, taste, cooking. Such food will be the most healthy and useful.

It is not by chance that Eastern vegetarianism, cultivated by the Hare Krishnas, attaches great importance to the variety of taste, expanding the range of a monotonous vegetarian table by applying spices and spices, as well as special seasonings. That is why the Krishna vegetarianism, as well as the vegetarian cuisine of the Chinese-Vietnamese direction Sumy Ching Hai, in recent years have made much greater progress in their distribution in Europe and America than traditional English (European) vegetarianism. Last, also taking into account some of the negative aspects of plant foods, in its most delicately designed menus for the well-off people, tries in every possible way to prepare dishes from plants to facilitate digestion in order to reduce the work of the stomach. That is why in European food such a prominent place is taken by mashed vegetable soups, puree second dishes from vegetables (mashed potatoes, ryukvennoe, pumpkin), the use of various mousses, soufflé, sambuces in sweet dishes (instead of natural berries).

In Russia, even in the 1920s and 1930s, the patriarchal traditions of the countryside and the general backwardness of the country were the objective historical obstacles that prevented under any circumstances from departing from the traditional hot dining table of the majority of the population. In the vastnesses of thirteen provinces of Great Russia, as well as in the Urals, Siberia and the Trans-Baikal, these traditions of hot dining were supported by the indigenous Russian population, including particularly consistently Don, Astrakhan, Urals (Orenburg), Siberian and Semirechye Cossacks, which firmly held patriarchal way of life.

Hot food, soup and porridge, any hot bread and meat or fish for the second were considered as indispensable, mandatory conditions for normal life and work, the deviation from which would be a disaster. That is why even in the most difficult moments the Russian village and the Russian urban working people did not dispense without hot food. Its real caloric content could decrease, its actual quantity could be reduced, but its basis - bread and cereal, bread and fries - remained unchanged.

In Russian history, there were many examples where representatives of the highest nobility, already torn from the people by the very fact of their birth and upbringing, often held in foreign boarding houses, or because of their long stay abroad, did not know Russian cuisine at all, or forgot it, as rarely they used it from childhood, and, replacing it in their everyday life with any foreign language - French, Italian, Spanish or English - eventually became spiritually and mentally completely alien to Russia. The fact is that over the years, gradually, supposedly purely "technical" change in the nature of nutrition nevertheless led to serious changes in the whole way of life, and hence to changes in psychology.

Without breaking with the national traditions, it is also necessary to take into account all that new and really practical and useful that can improve the quality of culinary processing of food material. This means that it is necessary to monitor new products, new dishes, evaluating them always objectively, critically and according to merit. And this is possible only if the person is well aware of the previous development of cookery, knows the strengths and weaknesses in cookery, and therefore is able to correctly assess and determine whether the new that has appeared in this era, is really updated, is it capable of it will improve what has already been achieved in culinary practice, in the organization of the table, in making up the menu, or not.

Hence it follows that one must study the mistakes of the past well, so as not to repeat them accidentally, involuntarily. This is especially true for making menus.

Another example, on the contrary, is negative. Knowledge of the international experience of the systematic use of synthetic soft drinks like Coca-Cola and various brightly colored "lemonades" should alert and warn our people from the thoughtless consumption of all these "water", far from harmless, especially for children. These foods can not be included in the diet, they must be deliberately avoided.

So, for events on the international culinary front, we must systematically, thoughtfully and critically monitor, and not turn away from them and therefore do not know, do not understand what is good and what is bad and even dangerous.

Only taking into account all this, taken together, it is possible to remain or - better to say - to keep up to the proper level of information and tasks related to modern nutrition, its organization, quality and composition.

In the 90 years of the last century there was no shortage of various recommendations in the field of nutrition. Literally every year there are more and more "directions" and "schools", the authors of which recommend another panacea, designed to "preserve" or even "strengthen" the health of people who believed them: vegetarianism, dry eating, saving starvation, fruit and milk diets, separate nutrition, Shatalova's method, etc., etc. It is not difficult to see that all these recommendations, for all their external differences, are built on the same pattern: they unilaterally choose one thing - clear and understandable, simplistic - and require the unconditional carried out I have these instructions without deviation for the long term, say - for a year or two. This is the reception of all charlatans. They are well aware that the circumstances of modern life are such that any person can not execute without any slightest omission all the petty prescriptions of their system. Hence, the failure of the system will be attributed to the account of every "careless" performer who, by accident missing a couple of times a diet or unable to withstand it until the end of the scheduled period due to her indigestion or monotony, will blame himself for failing, and not those charlatans who Fooled him with their "systems".

And this is the first conclusion that can and should be made from an introduction to the history of cooking. Hence, each people should not be too far from their national cuisine, because this is the first condition of proper nutrition. The second conclusion, which follows from our review of the history of the menu over two hundred years, is that the composition of food, and especially the composition of the menu, varies greatly in different historical periods, even in the same country. And this usually passes unnoticed for people of one generation. However, it turns out that different generations - fathers and children - eat differently. This is partly due to one of the causes of various disorders in nutrition. Hence the task is to preserve continuity in the nutrition of different generations, to ensure that in this area too sharp divergences and transitions are not tolerated.

The third conclusion, which also arises from a review of the history of the menu and from the practice of restaurants, from the experience of each person, is that the choice of food, the composition of the dishes, the development of the menus and the nutrition of each person should ultimately be individually conditioned. On this score, even Russian proverbs leave no doubt. They know and take into account this fact.

So, quite naturally, without straining, there are three basic, fundamental principles on the basis of which it is necessary to develop for themselves the most rational food system, the most reasonable and tasty menu: dishes of national cuisine (primarily their own, but also "aliens" that fit and like); dishes familiar and beloved, traditional for previous generations of the family; dishes personally appreciated and pleasant to everyone.

It is these lines that should be guided, choosing for themselves personally in different periods of their life different menus. The main thing is to create a variety - both grocery-food, and flavor, culinary, connected in a very large degree with the difference in culinary processing. And this means that you can not limit your diet to raw vegetables or boiled dishes only, but you must eat as varied as possible, that is, eat both baked and grilled, and fried, and stews, not only by changing the food material itself, but also the ways of processing it, of course, given their personal inclinations and desires. This is in a complex and will be a healthy, natural basis of a truly nutritious diet in which the calories, vitamins, proteins and fats will not be artificially considered, for everything will be formed correctly by itself. If only it was delicious and was eaten with appetite. "Eat until the stomach is fresh!" That is, eat everything right until you are healthy, and do not allow the wrong diet to lead to the appearance of various diseases that can impose a compulsory diet, to force to eat according to the imposed menu, which is perhaps the most terrible in life.

No wonder people say: "Windmill is strong with water, and man with food". It is understood, of course, - full and delicious.

Conclusions

Now it becomes clear that solving the problem of food quality and nutrition requires unconventional approaches. Nutrition can be considered as a fundamental act of a living organism, and the management of these processes is an effective way to improve the quality of human life, its duration, prevention and treatment of diseases.

The fact is that, in essence, the concept of an ideal nutrition echoed and was in good agreement with generally accepted views on the evolution of man. But recently there has been a rapid progress in our knowledge in the field of physiology and biochemistry of nutrition and food assimilation processes. One of the main incentives in the development of theoretical nutrition problems is practical needs of paramount importance.

It may seem that consideration of the idea of creating ideal food and perfect nutrition within such approaches will make it possible to assert that it belongs to the field of beautiful utopias, and in the present century and for the foreseeable future this problem is unlikely to be solved. That is, the ideal food is a myth.

It is important to think carefully about the choice of type of food, to make an individual menu for yourself and your family. This will help not only to maintain health and efficiency, but also to prolong your active and fulfilling life. With this approach, ideal nutrition is no longer a myth, but an objective reality.

[3], [4], [5],