Microscope and Macroscope
The view from the microscope is looking at every chemical reaction and genetics.
The view from the marcoscope is looking at how all nutrients work together, and nutritional deficiencies. (It focuses on epigenetics of how nutrients and the environment turns genes on and off, but this is not the main point for now.)
Macroscope also looks at the environment of toxic exposure, infection and body movement for circulation.
A balance of both is ideal.
The problem with the microscope is when there are so many chemical reactions that cannot be observed or fully understood, and useful information is not being derived.
It’s too far down the rabbit hole and losing sight of the big picture.
Sometimes it’s better to focus on all nutrient deficiencies (macro) and thus circle around the problem from the outside.
Sometimes that sulfur problem is a cofactor problem of lack of molybdenum and vitamin C and that solves it without examining all the complex feedback loops of its symptoms.
The macroscope view considers that the body can heal itself when it has all the nutrients it needs.
This looks at direct cofactors, and indirect cofactors like electrolytes that are needed to tolerate and assimilate all the other nutrients. If you are missing at least two of sodium, potassium and magnesium you are likely to be intolerant to many foods and nutrients. If you don’t start by eliminating the most basic causes of problems the view from the microscope is too narrow to catch the indirect cofactors.
It also helps to understand the details of cofactor dependency, which requires a more microscope view. Understanding details helps with complex problem solving of reactions.
The dominant paradigm is biased in favor of the microscope. It is in the medical paradigm that uses an academic research model of isolating one variable at a time for universal generalization.
Not all research is like this, but the medical paradigm use of it leads to the tendency to give generic solutions “take this for that symptom.”
The alternative paradigm is systems thinking of how all the parts of the problem and solution fit together. That is much harder to do because it requires more thinking.
Clinical practice is N=1 with all variables identified to leave no weak links.
There are no double blind studies of your health in all its dimensions.
I base this is in my PhD studies of engineering thinking, which has completely different statistical methods known as six sigma, explained at the Theory section of my website Primal Rejuvenation, under Engineering Health.
We can use a wide variety of microscope studies in a macroscope perspective.
The view from the marcoscope is looking at how all nutrients work together, and nutritional deficiencies. (It focuses on epigenetics of how nutrients and the environment turns genes on and off, but this is not the main point for now.)
Macroscope also looks at the environment of toxic exposure, infection and body movement for circulation.
A balance of both is ideal.
The problem with the microscope is when there are so many chemical reactions that cannot be observed or fully understood, and useful information is not being derived.
It’s too far down the rabbit hole and losing sight of the big picture.
Sometimes it’s better to focus on all nutrient deficiencies (macro) and thus circle around the problem from the outside.
Sometimes that sulfur problem is a cofactor problem of lack of molybdenum and vitamin C and that solves it without examining all the complex feedback loops of its symptoms.
The macroscope view considers that the body can heal itself when it has all the nutrients it needs.
This looks at direct cofactors, and indirect cofactors like electrolytes that are needed to tolerate and assimilate all the other nutrients. If you are missing at least two of sodium, potassium and magnesium you are likely to be intolerant to many foods and nutrients. If you don’t start by eliminating the most basic causes of problems the view from the microscope is too narrow to catch the indirect cofactors.
It also helps to understand the details of cofactor dependency, which requires a more microscope view. Understanding details helps with complex problem solving of reactions.
The dominant paradigm is biased in favor of the microscope. It is in the medical paradigm that uses an academic research model of isolating one variable at a time for universal generalization.
Not all research is like this, but the medical paradigm use of it leads to the tendency to give generic solutions “take this for that symptom.”
The alternative paradigm is systems thinking of how all the parts of the problem and solution fit together. That is much harder to do because it requires more thinking.
Clinical practice is N=1 with all variables identified to leave no weak links.
There are no double blind studies of your health in all its dimensions.
I base this is in my PhD studies of engineering thinking, which has completely different statistical methods known as six sigma, explained at the Theory section of my website Primal Rejuvenation, under Engineering Health.
We can use a wide variety of microscope studies in a macroscope perspective.
Eat to energize, detoxify & immunize.
Move to circulate, align, & relax.
Primal Rejuvenation Health Coaching
Find out what you get in a
Free Assessment
See how I support you fully in
Health Coaching Steps
I work over video: Facebook, Zoom, Google, from Michigan, USA
Hess.PaulC@gmail.com
Follow me on FACEBOOK:
choose “See First” to get all notifications. blog posts
INSTAGRAM
Primal Rejuvenation
Systematic
enough to make a difference
Simple
enough to implement
Sensitive
to individual needs
Move to circulate, align, & relax.
Primal Rejuvenation Health Coaching
Find out what you get in a
Free Assessment
See how I support you fully in
Health Coaching Steps
I work over video: Facebook, Zoom, Google, from Michigan, USA
Hess.PaulC@gmail.com
Follow me on FACEBOOK:
choose “See First” to get all notifications. blog posts
Primal Rejuvenation
Systematic
enough to make a difference
Simple
enough to implement
Sensitive
to individual needs
