Let’s Talk (#3)

“We need a new definition of malnutrition.  Malnutrition means under- and over-nutrition.  Malnutrition means emaciated and obese.”

-Catherine Bertini

In your opinion, should the definition of malnutrition be expanded to encapsulate both ends of the consumption spectrum?  Why or why not?  It goes without saying that the conflicts that plague our Planet and its inhabitants are not easily fixable.  However, were the definition of malnutrition to be expanded, how could the problems as a result of malnutrition be resolved?  I guess what I’m trying to say is this: is it possible that under-nutrition and over-nutrition can both be combatted with the same diet?

I’ll share my opinion next week, but in the meantime, I can’t wait to hear your thoughts.

Until Next Week… Plan Well, Pack Well, Live Well,

Katie 🙂


2 thoughts on “Let’s Talk (#3)

  1. Alexandra

    Thank you for another great post Katie! You bring up some very great points about the perceived opinion of malnutrition. I agree that the definition of malnutrition needs to be expanded to include both over and under nutrition, as the word applies to both sides. Both sides of the nutritional spectrum are detrimental to a person’s health. I also agree that both sides can be combatted with a healthy, well-balanced diet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s