Do you know what the main problem of the biohacker is? Is the contradictions. The inconsistency of the information that is presented on the Web today. One study says one thing, another says something else. One doctor says one thing, the other contradicts it.
Let me take meat as an example. One book about health or biohacking says you shouldn’t eat meat and they give lots of arguments. Another book gives just as many contrary arguments why you should eat meat.
What’s the solution? For myself, I figured out how to proceed more effectively. I’m sure it’s helpful for you, too:
- Everyone’s body is different and has different reactions to foods. The most objective indicator is the tests. You get tested, you introduce the product into your diet, and after a while you get tested again. And see how your body reacts;
- In addition to tests (or instead of them, if you do not want to spend money all the time) look at how you feel. Do you feel better after taking a particular product? But that’s not really an accurate indicator, really. Feelings can be deceptive;
- The golden mean. For example, if some people say you should eat it and others say you shouldn’t, I will still eat it, but in small amounts. After all, if it turns out in the end that meat is bad for me, the harm will be small because I haven’t eaten much. And if it turns out that meat is good for me, then I’m a winner, because even if I ate a little, I still ate it.