Nutrition Myths...
Options
J72FIT
Posts: 6,067 Member
An excerpt from a Michael Pollan article...
Thoughts?
Eat Foods, Not Nutrients
Pollan, author of In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto and The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, is professor of science and environmental journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.
Pollan says that where we've gone wrong is by focusing on the invisible nutrients in foods instead of on foods themselves. He calls this "nutritionism" -- an ideology that's lost track of the science on which it was based.
It's good for scientists to look at why carrots are good for us, and to explore the possible benefits of, say, substance X found in a carrot.
What happens next is well-meaning experts tell us we should eat more foods with substance X. But the next thing you know, the food industry is selling us a food enriched with substance X. We may not know whether substance X, when not in a carrot, is good or bad for us. And we may be so impressed with the new substance-X-filled product that we buy it and eat it -- even though it may have unhealthy ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup and salt.
Pollan identifies four myths behind this kind of thinking:
• Myth #1: Food is a delivery vehicle for nutrients. What really matters isn't broccoli but its fiber and antioxidants. If we get that right, we get our diet right. Foods kind of get in the way.
• Myth #2: We need experts to tell us how to eat. Nutrients are invisible and mysterious. "It is a little like religion," Pollan said. "If a powerful entity is invisible, you need a priesthood to mediate your relation with food."
• Myth #3: The whole point of eating is to maintain and promote bodily health. "You are either improving or ruining your health when you eat -- that is a very American idea," Pollan says. "But there are many other reasons to eat food: pleasure, social community, identity, and ritual. Health is not the only thing going on on our plates."
• Myth #4: There are evil foods and good foods. "At any given time there is an evil nutrient we try to drive like Satan from the food supply -- first it was saturated fats, then it was trans fat," Pollan says. "Then there is the evil nutrient's doppelganger, the blessed nutrient. If we get enough of that we, will be healthy and maybe live forever. It's funny through history how the good and bad guys keep changing.
Thoughts?
Eat Foods, Not Nutrients
Pollan, author of In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto and The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, is professor of science and environmental journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.
Pollan says that where we've gone wrong is by focusing on the invisible nutrients in foods instead of on foods themselves. He calls this "nutritionism" -- an ideology that's lost track of the science on which it was based.
It's good for scientists to look at why carrots are good for us, and to explore the possible benefits of, say, substance X found in a carrot.
What happens next is well-meaning experts tell us we should eat more foods with substance X. But the next thing you know, the food industry is selling us a food enriched with substance X. We may not know whether substance X, when not in a carrot, is good or bad for us. And we may be so impressed with the new substance-X-filled product that we buy it and eat it -- even though it may have unhealthy ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup and salt.
Pollan identifies four myths behind this kind of thinking:
• Myth #1: Food is a delivery vehicle for nutrients. What really matters isn't broccoli but its fiber and antioxidants. If we get that right, we get our diet right. Foods kind of get in the way.
• Myth #2: We need experts to tell us how to eat. Nutrients are invisible and mysterious. "It is a little like religion," Pollan said. "If a powerful entity is invisible, you need a priesthood to mediate your relation with food."
• Myth #3: The whole point of eating is to maintain and promote bodily health. "You are either improving or ruining your health when you eat -- that is a very American idea," Pollan says. "But there are many other reasons to eat food: pleasure, social community, identity, and ritual. Health is not the only thing going on on our plates."
• Myth #4: There are evil foods and good foods. "At any given time there is an evil nutrient we try to drive like Satan from the food supply -- first it was saturated fats, then it was trans fat," Pollan says. "Then there is the evil nutrient's doppelganger, the blessed nutrient. If we get enough of that we, will be healthy and maybe live forever. It's funny through history how the good and bad guys keep changing.
1
Replies
-
Where is the article?
0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Where is the article?
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20090323/7-rules-for-eating
To be clear, I don't agree with the entire article, I just found the excerpt I posted to be interesting...1 -
I have read Many of Polan's books. He makes some very valid points, but is seemingly ideological at heart. He has some good reads, but I disagree with him when it comes to what food we "should" be eating.1
-
"And we may be so impressed with the new substance-X-filled product that we buy it and eat it -- even though it may have unhealthy ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup and salt."
Isn't he falling for his own myth #4 there?9 -
I noticed that too.stevencloser wrote: »"And we may be so impressed with the new substance-X-filled product that we buy it and eat it -- even though it may have unhealthy ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup and salt."
Isn't he falling for his own myth #4 there?
But I'm overall a Pollan fan. Those myths almost ruined my health.0 -
The guy is trying to be radical. He is just trying to go against a trend that is happening. Nothing bad can come from eating nutritious foods. Saying they are a myth is a bit ridiculous. If I go and sit in some volcanic pool with all its minerals it may do me some good, it may do nothing - but it sure won't hurt me. I agree to the point that I won't believe the minerals will make my skin 10 years younger lol - but it may do some good. Suppose he is driving a little at - don't put your whole faith in food studies and chasing superfoods
If he is, he's been doing it for close to 20 years. I do think we should eat recognizable food (corn syrup, high fructose or not, is not something I could make in my kitchen from am ear of corn), but I don't necessarily think more plants less animals is the right balance for everyone. I feel much better on high protein diet than a high carbon diet. I know that's not true for everyone. That's okay: it's also not true that everyone is or should be 6 feet tall or have blonde hair.2 -
I like Pollan. I could nitpick specific things he says and don't always agree with him, but his overall approach is consistent with what resonates with me and works for me. Not saying that will be the case for everyone, but I think he's generally sensible.3
-
The guy is trying to be radical. He is just trying to go against a trend that is happening. Nothing bad can come from eating nutritious foods. Saying they are a myth is a bit ridiculous. If I go and sit in some volcanic pool with all its minerals it may do me some good, it may do nothing - but it sure won't hurt me. I agree to the point that I won't believe the minerals will make my skin 10 years younger lol - but it may do some good. Suppose he is driving a little at - don't put your whole faith in food studies and chasing superfoods
The volcanic pool may not actively harm you, but you could still be hurt if you were doing it *instead* of something else that could provide actual benefits. If you were told that the minerals in the pool helped protect against skin cancer (just making that up) and you skipped your next skin cancer screening on that basis, harm could result.
I think of "superfood products" the same way. Eating a FiberOne bar won't hurt me, but if I'm skipping vegetables with fiber because I think the bar covers me, there is the potential that I'm missing out on something.
When we're told something is beneficial for us and it might now be, we potentially waste time, resources, and effort that could be put into something more productive. Now I don't think this is a huge problem when it comes to superfood products, but the possibility is there. Most people eating FiberOne bars aren't eliminating vegetables, I know it isn't an either/or situation.4 -
Well yeah we could all make hypothetical arguments and situations in which it would or would not apply. I just answered on the basis of what I've been told already. The argument that 'yeah but if you did just that it would be bad' seems to get thrown around a lot. When I have discussed superfoods before it is always the point = 'yeah but if you ate broccoli for 6 months then it would be bad'.
I agree with you on the point you have made - yeah if you devoted all your time to finding the most nutritious food and eating just that then there will be a problem.
I agree with myth 1 and 3 - not 2 or 4 though. Science has always developed and pressure on those scientists has too as we all know. I don't think we need science to tell people most fruit and veg is "healthy" (being very careful what word I use) or "nutrient dense". Certain foods are vilified and certainly if you say anything bad about food groups in here - you will know about it lol
When you say you agree -- do you mean you agree with Pollan that 1 and 3 are myths? Or do you mean you disagree and think they are not myths?
Regarding 2 -- I think it's important for experts to figure out nutritional science because I think understanding how certain things benefit us and certain things may harm us is important. I do think it is a myth that we need experts to tell us how to eat. We don't need anyone to tell us that, generally, eating fruits and vegetables is a good thing. But as far as understanding *why* this is the cause, our knowledge is always developing and I think that is great.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »"And we may be so impressed with the new substance-X-filled product that we buy it and eat it -- even though it may have unhealthy ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup and salt."
Isn't he falling for his own myth #4 there?
True. I let that one go... lol0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I like Pollan. I could nitpick specific things he says and don't always agree with him, but his overall approach is consistent with what resonates with me and works for me. Not saying that will be the case for everyone, but I think he's generally sensible.
Same here...
0 -
How so?The guy is trying to be radical.
What trend is he going against? I don't think he thinks anything bad can come from nutritious food either.He is just trying to go against a trend that is happening. Nothing bad can come from eating nutritious foods. Saying they are a myth is a bit ridiculous.
I tend to agree with this...If I go and sit in some volcanic pool with all its minerals it may do me some good, it may do nothing - but it sure won't hurt me. I agree to the point that I won't believe the minerals will make my skin 10 years younger lol - but it may do some good. Suppose he is driving a little at - don't put your whole faith in food studies and chasing superfoods0 -
Well yeah we could all make hypothetical arguments and situations in which it would or would not apply. I just answered on the basis of what I've been told already. The argument that 'yeah but if you did just that it would be bad' seems to get thrown around a lot. When I have discussed superfoods before it is always the point = 'yeah but if you ate broccoli for 6 months then it would be bad'.
I agree with you on the point you have made - yeah if you devoted all your time to finding the most nutritious food and eating just that then there will be a problem.
I agree with myth 1 and 3 - not 2 or 4 though. Science has always developed and pressure on those scientists has too as we all know. I don't think we need science to tell people most fruit and veg is "healthy" (being very careful what word I use) or "nutrient dense". Certain foods are vilified and certainly if you say anything bad about food groups in here - you will know about it lol
It really doesn't sound like you are very familiar with Pollan at all. Have you read him? If not, I'd suggest you at least read the whole piece the selection is from to understand where he is coming from.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Well yeah we could all make hypothetical arguments and situations in which it would or would not apply. I just answered on the basis of what I've been told already. The argument that 'yeah but if you did just that it would be bad' seems to get thrown around a lot. When I have discussed superfoods before it is always the point = 'yeah but if you ate broccoli for 6 months then it would be bad'.
I agree with you on the point you have made - yeah if you devoted all your time to finding the most nutritious food and eating just that then there will be a problem.
I agree with myth 1 and 3 - not 2 or 4 though. Science has always developed and pressure on those scientists has too as we all know. I don't think we need science to tell people most fruit and veg is "healthy" (being very careful what word I use) or "nutrient dense". Certain foods are vilified and certainly if you say anything bad about food groups in here - you will know about it lol
It really doesn't sound like you are very familiar with Pollan at all. Have you read him? If not, I'd suggest you at least read the whole piece the selection is from to understand where he is coming from.
+12 -
Well yeah we could all make hypothetical arguments and situations in which it would or would not apply. I just answered on the basis of what I've been told already. The argument that 'yeah but if you did just that it would be bad' seems to get thrown around a lot. When I have discussed superfoods before it is always the point = 'yeah but if you ate broccoli for 6 months then it would be bad'.
I agree with you on the point you have made - yeah if you devoted all your time to finding the most nutritious food and eating just that then there will be a problem.
I agree with myth 1 and 3 - not 2 or 4 though. Science has always developed and pressure on those scientists has too as we all know. I don't think we need science to tell people most fruit and veg is "healthy" (being very careful what word I use) or "nutrient dense". Certain foods are vilified and certainly if you say anything bad about food groups in here - you will know about it lol
Specifically addressing the part in bold...there are tons of people who have a very reductive view of food. They're the ones starting threads with topics like "Which is better...rice or potatoes?" (If you haven't noticed them before, wait about two weeks. The boards will be flooded with them). I think an important aspect of Pollan's point is that there aren't any "perfect" foods. You're never going to construct the most ideal diet, and it's a waste of time and energy to go down that path.
The other thing you'll notice in the "what's the absolute healthiest thing I can be eating?" posts is the stress level of the posters. Those kinds of threads tend to devolve into trash fires relatively quickly because the OP is so keyed up and anxious. That much stress isn't good for anyone, and I'd argue that it's better to eat a mostly okay(ish) diet and have a low stress level than it would be to eat the "perfect" diet if it blows your stress level through the roof.
Part of what I appreciate about #1 is that it acknowledges that our understanding of food science is incomplete. We don't fully understand the interplay between different nutrients, and we are still discovering other compounds in our foods, so we're not at a place yet where we can accurately break down our foods into their individual components. An orange isn't just vitamin C + fiber, it's also vitamin A, folate, potassium, calcium, etc. You could spend a ridiculous amount of time tracking all of those and supplementing, or you could eat an orange.
10 -
I really like Michael Pollan, and have several of his books on my shelf, from Second Nature where he begins gardening, to In Defense of Food ("Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."), the Omnivore's Dilemma, and The Botany of Desire. You can quibble here and there at what he says, but overall, I think his philosophy of food is sound and a good model to follow. I'm more of an Agrarianist a la Wendall Berry (or Jefferson, or Cato, Cicero and Virgil), and Pollan dovetails in nicely with that philosophy.He has the great-grandmother rule (don't eat anything that your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food) and I think of that often (even when I am not hewing to that advice). For example, I think Crisco was around at the time mine was baking, but she used lard in her pie crusts, and I've been taking my hand-made pie crusts back to leaf lard (still need to experiment with butter, which is a lot cheaper than leaf lard). And like her, I grow a lot of my own food, and support my neighbors and local farmers and other food producers.0
-
I don't dislike him, although I attempted to read one of his books and it just put me to sleep.
That being said, I agree with myths 3 and 4 but I don't think 1 and 2 are nearly as prevalent or relevant.
I don't think any of his core ideas are far off though, he seems sensible overall.2 -
Well yeah we could all make hypothetical arguments and situations in which it would or would not apply. I just answered on the basis of what I've been told already. The argument that 'yeah but if you did just that it would be bad' seems to get thrown around a lot. When I have discussed superfoods before it is always the point = 'yeah but if you ate broccoli for 6 months then it would be bad'.
I agree with you on the point you have made - yeah if you devoted all your time to finding the most nutritious food and eating just that then there will be a problem.
I agree with myth 1 and 3 - not 2 or 4 though. Science has always developed and pressure on those scientists has too as we all know. I don't think we need science to tell people most fruit and veg is "healthy" (being very careful what word I use) or "nutrient dense". Certain foods are vilified and certainly if you say anything bad about food groups in here - you will know about it lol
Specifically addressing the part in bold...there are tons of people who have a very reductive view of food. They're the ones starting threads with topics like "Which is better...rice or potatoes?" (If you haven't noticed them before, wait about two weeks. The boards will be flooded with them). I think an important aspect of Pollan's point is that there aren't any "perfect" foods. You're never going to construct the most ideal diet, and it's a waste of time and energy to go down that path.
The other thing you'll notice in the "what's the absolute healthiest thing I can be eating?" posts is the stress level of the posters. Those kinds of threads tend to devolve into trash fires relatively quickly because the OP is so keyed up and anxious. That much stress isn't good for anyone, and I'd argue that it's better to eat a mostly okay(ish) diet and have a low stress level than it would be to eat the "perfect" diet if it blows your stress level through the roof.
Part of what I appreciate about #1 is that it acknowledges that our understanding of food science is incomplete. We don't fully understand the interplay between different nutrients, and we are still discovering other compounds in our foods, so we're not at a place yet where we can accurately break down our foods into their individual components. An orange isn't just vitamin C + fiber, it's also vitamin A, folate, potassium, calcium, etc. You could spend a ridiculous amount of time tracking all of those and supplementing, or you could eat an orange.
Yes!0 -
I don't dislike him, although I attempted to read one of his books and it just put me to sleep.
That being said, I agree with myths 3 and 4 but I don't think 1 and 2 are nearly as prevalent or relevant.
I don't think any of his core ideas are far off though, he seems sensible overall.
Yeah I think overall he is ok. I mean, he plugs the silly rule of if you can't pronounce it, or read it don't eat it but overall his philosophy makes sense to me.
0 -
Dr. Pollan is sensible with the positions he has chosen to take in his books. Realize, he's selling books with this speech. His audience, a crowd of CDC scientists, is odd. The CDC scientists take from this speech, that they need to use the power of the federal government to put full service groceries in low-income inner cities, is odd. I don't get the sense that the CDC scientists heard what Pollan was saying, nor that Pollan cared who he was talking to. Other than that, "Eat food" is fine advice we should all heed.0
-
I like him too. He makes complete sense in his food rules:
- Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
- Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.
- Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.
- Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.
- It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"
- Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.
- Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.
The myths seem make some good points. I think North America's health really started going downhill around the same time that they started to listen to the experts on what to eat.
Good article. Great book.4 -
He has a lovely 4 episode series on Netflix, based more on culture and food than nutrition. I wouldn't take absolutely everything to heart, but overall he's sensible and his opinions aren't so drastic that they're going to ruin anyone's health.
His overall sentiment is fine, and usually points to eating in moderation with an emphasis on plants. I also think he's a fan of the process of cooking and eating, so his "food your grandmother would recognize" and "real/whole" foods promotion make sense in that aspect - he's got a slow/local and farm-to-table appreciation happening. I eat plenty of processed foods myself, but I do agree that the flavors, traditions, and connections you get from cooking and eating meals the way he describes are beneficial and pleasurable.1 -
I think North America's health really started going downhill around the same time that they started to listen to the experts on what to eat.
Except that we never really have. They keep saying to eat more vegetables and fruit, for example, and we (as a society, on average) do not. They also say don't eat too much and we keep eating more and more.
Pollan, of course, is in favor of eating your vegetables and would not consider that "medicalization." What he deplores is turning the benefit of broccoli into a set of micronutrients that we have identified and then thinking you can get the same benefit from just taking a pill or (as is common) eating a cereal with "100% of the RDA of X vitamins and minerals" and seeing that as a balanced diet. I think he'd also dislike the mindset that leads to questions like "kale or broccoli, which is better, which one should I include in my diet" or, similarly, "potato or sweet potato" or even "chicken or fish,"
I also like him for the reasons jmbmillholland says while not (as she indicates too) assuming that my agrarian tendencies or sympathies really mean that eating that way is superior. It is a good way to simplify everything and end up with a balanced healthy diet, though, without overcomplicating what a good diet requires (getting the right superfood and supplemented this and that or never eating something else).2 -
I like him too. He makes complete sense in his food rules:
- Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
- Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.
- Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.
- Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.
- It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"
- Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.
- Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.
The myths seem make some good points. I think North America's health really started going downhill around the same time that they started to listen to the experts on what to eat.
Good article. Great book.
well, for me those rules would limit me quite a bit.
1- my great grandmother was English, lived in England in a small town so no ethnic foods for me.
2- I make things from scratch with more then five ingredients- BREAD has more than five ingredients.
3- Just depends on the store set up
4-everything rots eventually given the right environment- even twinkies
5- Always leave the table a little hungry....so you can snack later?
6-hopefully your family isn't a bunch of *kitten*, and everyone works on the same schedule. And you better not be single!
7-My local Kwikfill sells a variety of basic foods- flour, sugar, milk, stuff like that - is that inferior to the grocery store items somehow?6 -
I like him too. He makes complete sense in his food rules:
- Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce. - Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.
- Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.
- It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"
- Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.
- Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.
The myths seem make some good points. I think North America's health really started going downhill around the same time that they started to listen to the experts on what to eat.
Good article. Great book.
OHFFS- I F**KING HATE THAT RULE (bolded above)
Just because you are so uneducated you cannot pronounce something doesn't mean it's bad.
Jesus H Christ. nothing makes me more irritated than that rule- it's so fking stupid.7 - Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
-
I like him too. He makes complete sense in his food rules:
- Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
- Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.
- Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.
- Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.
- It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"
- Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.
- Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.
The myths seem make some good points. I think North America's health really started going downhill around the same time that they started to listen to the experts on what to eat.
Good article. Great book.
If I'm hungry and on the road, why not eat some almonds or an apple from the gas station?
I get what Pollan is going for with these rules, but they seem more like random restrictions. Six-ingredient olive tapenade isn't harmful and the middle of the supermarket is where I get all my non-produce staples. I'm not giving up black pepper because it is stocked in the middle of the store.
I think using these faddy rules as some sort of substitute for learning about food and nutrition and applying my knowledge to food choices is a negative trend. In the sense that Pollan pushes these rules, he's as guilty as many others in promoting myths.
My maternal great-grandmother probably wouldn't have recognized an avocado -- I'm not going to let that change the way I eat.7 -
I'd also like to point out that coffee is in the the middle of the store.
You take my coffee- and I will cut you.11 -
I like him too. He makes complete sense in his food rules:
- Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.
- Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.
- Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.
- Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.
- It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"
- Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.
- Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.
The myths seem make some good points. I think North America's health really started going downhill around the same time that they started to listen to the experts on what to eat.
Good article. Great book.
Except for the one about stopping before you're completely full, these are all sneaky ways to trick people into eating more whole foods (fruits/vegetables/meat/etc.) and I really hate that approach. If the message is "you should probably eat more whole foods," I don't need a whole ton of random restrictions that may or may not guide me to that conclusion.
Additionally, with the exception of the rule about stopping before you're full, none of these rules pass the "Why?" test. For example, if you say stop before you're full and I ask why, the answer is that it takes 10-15 minutes for you to recognize the sensation of fullness, so by stopping a little short of feeling full, you're helping to ensure that you don't eat past the point of satiety. That makes sense to me.
If you say don't buy food where you buy gas and I ask why, what's the answer? If it's "because you're more likely to end up eating junk food," why not just make "don't eat too much junk food" the rule?
Even worse, if you say don't eat things your grandmother wouldn't recognize and I ask why, what's the answer there? Even if we expand that rule and say "don't eat something that didn't exist as a food item when your grandmother was alive" and I ask why, you still don't have an answer other than "because it might be bad for you"...? That's not justification enough for it to be a rule.4 -
I'd also like to point out that coffee is in the the middle of the store.
You take my coffee- and I will cut you.
What if you made the mistake of grabbing decaf, and I took it from you to give you the good stuff?
Generally speaking, the rules above aren't inherently bad, IMO. They - like so many rules - just seem somewhat arbitrary and/or not thought out very well and (no or here) unnecessary.
Personal anecdotes:
I regularly eat salad with more than 5 ingredients. Is he really going to say I shouldn't do that? Per rule 2, yes.
Would my grandmother recognize quinoa? Since both are deceased, I can't ask. But I never heard them mention it, and I ate with one of them just about every weekend for years.
If I eat until I'm not quite full, I'll probably end up eating a lot more what many people might call "junk" Calories later - which would defeat the purpose of eating whole foods at dinner.
No, I don't remember when eating between meals felt wrong. I remember my mother telling me to eat something (since I regularly ate fruit and granola bars and the like), if I were hungry. Unless, of course, we were particularly close to dinner time.
Like I alluded to before, I wouldn't consider the rules "bad," per se - just not very useful to me.0 -
I don't agree with some of his points here and there, but I overall like him and his approach. I totally agree with the myths too. Myth #3 is especially relevant to me. Not everything needs to be about nutrients. People tend to think about health in terms of hardware, but forget about the software.The guy is trying to be radical. He is just trying to go against a trend that is happening. Nothing bad can come from eating nutritious foods. Saying they are a myth is a bit ridiculous. If I go and sit in some volcanic pool with all its minerals it may do me some good, it may do nothing - but it sure won't hurt me. I agree to the point that I won't believe the minerals will make my skin 10 years younger lol - but it may do some good. Suppose he is driving a little at - don't put your whole faith in food studies and chasing superfoods
You apparently haven't read Pollan. As for the bolded, google "orthorexia" and how damaging it is mentally, socially, and as consequence of constant stress and anxiety, physically too.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions