Rethinking the Cost Benefit Analysis

The allergist’s goal is to expand the patient’s diet as much as possible. Unnecessarily limiting one’s diet is too big of a cost, too difficult to maintain. The social cost is too big. And potential gaps in nutrition is worrisome. 

Arguments along these lines are used to caution against restricting one’s diet. And I used to agree with it all.

But now that I’ve experienced firsthand what a difference removing my problem foods made, I argue there are costs associated with not finding and following the diet right for you.

Pills for symptom control, constant inflammation, and potentially lasting brain damage for migraine sufferers, are just a few.

What really is the higher cost here?

Can we afford to not find the true cause?

Besides we in modern developed countries have access to a wider variety of foods than much of our ancestors or even many less developed areas in the present day, even if you have multiple allergies to contend with. So much so that people can afford to limit their diet based on personal values and beliefs.

Despite occasionally tiresome limits and caution needed with my diet, my quality of life has vastly improved. Much higher energy levels, not having to feel chronically sick in both mind and body, being able to enjoy exercise, etc. Isn’t being able to use and enjoy our mind and body to the best of its potential what life is all about?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *