There are a lot of turf battles in the health and fitness world. There are proponents of low-carb vs. low-fat diets. There are those who promote low-intensity endurance activities and others who promote high intensity interval training. And now, there’s the natural vs. artificial wars. This distinction is unique because it applies both to food and to physical activity. And people can get very heated about why their side is better than the other.

But I’d like you for a moment to consider this: what does it mean to be “natural?” What does it mean to be “artificial?” And most importantly, why should you care?

Natural is better

The folks on the natural side can be a bit crazy about shaming people who train in gyms and who don’t follow their particular system of moving naturally. There’s no clear definition, however, of what natural really is. Take a look at the myriad of natural training systems (TM) that have sprung up in the last decade, using keywords like: primal, flow, monkey, caveman, natural, animal, etc. Even the proponents of natural training can’t agree. Is it natural if you’re working out barefoot? Do you need to be outside, in nature? What if you’re wearing nylon running shorts, is that still natural? Do you need to be naked, carrying a stone on your head while walking across a moss-covered log in an old-growth forest? And even if all those statements are true, does that make what you’re doing better or more effective than someone squatting with a barbell?

I’ve heard from one client, who’s trying really hard to wean herself from thickly cushioned shoes and a desk job to a more natural lifestyle. She’s made incredible changes, including getting rid of furniture, doing some barefoot training, and walking a ton (up to 10 miles a day, sweet!).  But, the “pro-natural” guru podcasts she listens to while walking pick on the very people they say they want to help. “Oh, you parked at the other end of the parking lot and walked into the store? Well I walked 4 miles up a streambed while carrying two kids on my hip and juggling organic mangoes the whole way.”  The gurus make it sound like nothing she does is good enough, and she gets exasperated for even trying. In the end, neither behavior is inherently better or healthier than the other. Since each person has their own goals and constraints, each should be encouraged to strive for the best solution that makes sense in their lives.

Eating naturally

The same labels are frequently given to food. Eat natural foods, the shiny-faced gurus chant. Only organic, humanely raised, pesticide-free, local, wheat-free, bla, bla, bla is good enough for you! But what makes a food natural? And why is that inherently better for you? Nature is constantly trying to destroy us. Botulinum toxin, water hemlock, and tetrodotoxin (from the pufferfish) are among Mother Nature’s most toxic substances. And don’t forget the impact of infectious diseases throughout history, brought to us by nature.

Many of today’s healthiest foods, like broccoli, apples, and carrots only exist in their current state due to many generations of selective breeding, or artificial selection, by humans. The natural vs. artificial debate is really a distraction from what’s truly important. I think we generally understand that a diet comprised mostly of meats and veggies is healthier than Lean Cuisine and Twinkies. But please don’t feel inferior for purchasing conventionally grown cabbage or cheap supermarket eggs.

Our ancestors likely ate their fair share of barely-edible vegetation, bugs, meat, and bitter fruits, depending on where they lived. But there’s no reason to believe that their diets were superior to ours. Surely our diet impacts our health, but how much? It’s a simple question with a not-so-simple answer. Beyond managing nutrient deficiencies and food allergies there are all sorts of ideas in the world about how we can eat to optimize health. Until the science is in, you can probably do just fine following a few basic Food Rules.

Combining our nature with modern society

Unfortunately the push to be all-natural can come off a bit elitist and unreachable. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

In the last few years I’ve been studying systems like MovNat and Nutritious Movement, who fall under the “natural” umbrella. And I’m drawn to these systems because they promote a mindset shift towards spending more time moving, more time moving outdoors, and more time integrating movement into your lifestyle, as opposed to isolating it into your daily “workout.” So, while I think the natural classification is bunk and some of the details are woo-woo, I think that many of the underlying principles these systems offer are useful in changing a person’s outlook with respect to movement. Then, it’s easier to make a broader lifestyle change that encompasses moving mindfully and moving more often.

As humans, we do so much to impact the world and ourselves. Driving over steel bridges, calling grandma on your cell phone, and pedaling a bicycle to buy groceries are all “artificial” things that few people question the value of. Instead of being pulled into the natural vs. artificial debate, consider instead what steps you can take to move better, eat better, and feel better.  If, for you, that means doing CrossFit, eating from the salad bar at the supermarket and watching a movie with your buddies once a week, that’s OK! If that means running barefoot through the trees, growing your own food, and hosting a community drum circle, that’s OK too. We can all forge a path to a more satisfying life using the tools that resonate with us from both the natural world and the built world.

If you ask someone why they are recommending a product, service or behavior and the answer is nothing more than “because it’s natural,” dig deeper. Nature is neither good nor bad, it simply is. And while we can learn a ton from nature, we can also learn a ton from human civilization both past and present.

For more reading:

Natural movement and functional exercise from Al Kavadlo

What (if anything) does “natural” mean? from Science-Based Medicine