DefinePK

Abstract

Introduction


The theory of 'hot and cold effects of food' has prevailed in our culture since time immemorial. It is a system parallel to modern biomedical sciences. Generally speaking, it has been observed in our society that the theory of hot and cold is believed-in and practiced-by almost all sectors of society. It is not a concept solely seen in the less educated class, nor does it only belong to the lay people. From qualified doctors, homeopaths, hakims, to the general masses all have some faith and belief in the hot and cold effects of foods.This theory is prevalent in almost all parts of the world, irrespective of religion and political ideology. It has deep roots in the Indian, Malay, Korean, Sinhalese and Mexican cultures and is found in varying degrees in the Latin American, North American, European and African countries as well.1 The difference lies in the perception and interpretation of this theory, which varies with different cultures and even within the same culture. Some cultures use this theory to define foods and its effects, while in others it is also used to classify herbs, medicines, illnesses and diseases, etc. The roots of this theory emerge from the Spanish humoral medicine. As early as the 5th century BC there is reference to the hot-cold aspect of humoral medicine in the works of Hippocrates.2 In the Indian Ayurvedic belief this concept appears as early as the 2nd century BC.2 In the Chinese culture the Ch'i concept (Yin-cold and wet; yang-hot and dry) appeared in the 100-200 AD.2In the more developed countries one finds that the modern biomedical paradigm tends to disregard this theory altogether, stating it to be 'too variable and inconsistent'. On the contrary in countries of the East including Pakistan one finds that even medical practitioners have a firm belief in the effects of food on the body. In their practice they restrict foods in all illnesses ranging from the common cold to cirrhosis. The point needs to be made that variability; disagreement and inconsistencies are not evidence enough to prove that a system is moribund.1 It does suggest however, that the system is less organized and may lead to the outgrowth of many myths and fallacies about the effects of food. The consequences of such myths can be overwhelming, as is many times observed and reported.