Meat, twinkies and steel

My knowledge on nutrition and biology is elemental at best, but the following insights have taken my attention in the last days and have made me think of the topic of nutrition and the concept of "health".
First of all, there's an increasing awareness in society and media on what we eat and how it affects our diet and health. I believe that being aware of what we do -specially on things we often do compulsively like eating- it's really beneficial as we have an attentive way of life and raise perception on all internal and external factors of our actions and how they impact the world. For instance, factory farming solves the problem of feeding a large and very concentrated population, but industrial raising and slaughtering of animals brings them a lot of stress and suffering which in turn results in a high toxicity in the meat we eat, ending up in all sorts or diseases and ailments.* But there's a distinction between awareness and obsession, and I believe that for some people, their seek for "healthy food" has became the latter. Take for example this family [spanish only] or this article on the topic. While it's reasonable for a parent to pay attention to her children eating habits and intake of unhealthy food, I do believe there's a problem when you try to detoxify your children after one of them ate a single marshmallow.
Not only obsession for healthy food has been around, but also unhealthy means to get a good shape or weight. There's a rapidly growing industry of "healthy living" everywhere, and naturally aggresive marketing campaings to sell diet books, workout programs, organic products, etc. With so much propaganda, It seems like being healthy is becoming a new XXI century obsession, specially where no accurate information is available.
With it's shocking experiment "The Twinkie Diet", Professor Mark Haub has raised many interesting questions about the topic. Having lost 27 pounds without getting higher cholesterol or triglycerides levels by eating only Twinkies he know asks, "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?". Of course, Haub is not suggesting that the Twinkie Diet is healthy, but when it comes to only lose weight or have certain measures low, what does it mean to be healthy anyways? As he suggest, we need to revise our definition of what does it mean to be healthy.
When I think of somebody healthy, it comes to my mind factors such as resistance to illness, strength,  physical energy and a good hair, skin and teeth appearance. And while many people suggest a diet based on vegetables or at least a balanced diet of all alimentary groups, it was surprising to find in one of my readings about Genghish Khan and his warriors that one of their advantages in comparison to rival armies was how healthy and strong was a Mongolian soldier: strong teeth and bones, not prone to illness, quick to heal wounds, and easily able to ride and fight for two days in a row without food. The secret of their diet? Only milk and meat.
I'm not suggesting that vegetarian or other diets are unhealthy (just as with the mongolian, you could also find examples of vegetarian people who have extraordinary health) but my point is, when talking about diet and food, what does really mean to be healthy and what are the means we are following to be so?

tl;dr: "healthy food" as perceived by some people, does not necessarily mean a healthier body.

*This is a very well known relation but there are many more, like the dissociation of city people with animal life and nature, where people no longer consider animals as living beings and rather treat them as objects. This dissociation can take up the form of cruelty and brutality toward animals, and in sever cases, scales up to psychopathy affecting other human members. Authors like Desmond Morris have explored this issue when dealing with violence in societies.

A savage hypocracy

Existen muchos grupos de personas que, en dependencia de sus condiciones culturales, sociales, étnicas y sexuales, son considerados como minorías y son susceptibles al abuso, discriminación y agresión. En una búsqueda por proteger a dichos "grupos susceptibles", algunos gobiernos han tomado medidas tales como ofrecer autobuses públicos exclusivos para mujeres en la Ciudad de México, camiones de transporte de trabajadores palestinos en Israel, o el concepto de "crímenes de odio" en los Estados Unidos. 

El problema fundamental de la defensa de los derechos de ciertos grupos (homosexuales, discapacitados, negros -o el término que sea políticamente correcto-, etc.) cuando se aplican estas medidas proteccionistas es que apoyan la idea de que estos grupos son diferentes y necesitan ser tratados de forma diferente, conduciendo incluso a una mayor  segregación: "No le pegues a las mujeres", "no insultes a los negros", "no denigres homosexuales". Mi entendimiento es que este respeto debe partir del reconocimiento de la dignidad humana, y se debe respetar a las personas no porque sean negras o gays, sino porque simplemente son personas.

La falta de este entendimiento de la dignidad humana puede conducir prejuicios sustentados en  visiones equivocadas, como en el caso de la vestimenta de las mujeres. Una persona que defiende la postura de que las "mujeres provocan a los hombres con su vestimenta" podría alegar que si una mujer se viste como "prostituta", entonces tiene bien merecido que la violen o maltraten porque lo "anda buscando". Esto me parece terrible, ya que incluso si la mujer fuese prostituta profesional, eso no significa que alguien esté en libertad de violarla o agredirla. Por eso creo que se debe enfatizar la dignidad de todos los humanos, independiente a los grupos de identidad a los que pertenezca.

Genghis Khan

Si hay alguien que necesita ser revalorado por la historia, no es ni Nikolai Tesla ni Porfirio Diaz, sino Genghis Khan:

• Erigió el imperio más grande de la historia
• Creó la primera ruta comercial entre Europa y Asia
• Estableció la libertad religiosa
• Creó un alfabeto
• Creó una constitución internacional
• Creó el primer sistema postal
• Destruyó el sistema feudal del privilegio aristocrático y por nacimiento, construyendo un novedoso sistema para su tiempo basado en el mérito personal, lealtad y logros
• Prohibió la tortura
• Bajó los impuestos a todos, exentó a doctores, maestros, escolares y religiosos
• En una época donde los gobernantes se consideraban por encima de la ley (¡incluso hoy!), él creia que desde el Emperador hasta el campesino eran iguales ante la ley
• Estableció un censo regular
• Su imperio no acumuló riquezas, por el contrario, distribuyó los bienes obtenidos en combate para que entraran de nuevo en circulación comercial
• Instituyó la tradición de otorgar inmunidad diplomática a embajadores y enviados, aún de naciones enemigas
• Dejó instituciones por todo el mundo, que incluso al día de hoy ostentaron títulos como sultán, rey, emir, shah y Dalai Lama
• Murió, tranquilamente a la edad de 70 años, rodeado de una familia amorosa, amigos fieles y soldados leales dispuestos a arriesgar la vida por él

Más en el libro Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World