Nutrition Myths...
Options
Replies
-
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.
That would be acceptable- but I can't remember a single time I've "accidentally" grabbed decafe.
Whole bean vs ground maybe- but never decafe.amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
just today I had to give the division manager a pep talk- because she constantly is saying things like "I'm so bad today- I just ate like crap all day"- it goes on and on- it's at least once a week. It's exhausting listening to it- I can't imagine how stressful LIVING it can be.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?
Oh good, I thought I was the only one who was rolling my eyes at this list! My great-grandma and grandma were/are both obese and were/are crappy cooks. They both were/are in piss-poor health due to their weight and I have absolutely no desire to model anything after them
And yeah, my local store (Aldi's) parameter is set up to when you walk in the west wall has alcohol-chips-snacks-cereal, back/south wall is meat and specialty cold items, east wall is dairy-frozen foods and then north is checkout. The produce area is smack dab in the middle of the store (which has a grand total of 5 isles btw, lol!). If I only ate from the parameters I'd be living off of wine and Buffalo chicken wings
I do like Pollan and think many of his ideas are solid, but he seems to romanticize things a bit. Definitely not the worse voice out there to listen too though, and I've enjoyed his books.
eta: we're in the middle of moving right now and we don't even have enough dining room chairs for everyone to sit on-eating together as a family consists of people sitting on the floor in various rooms of the house hehe.2 -
I don't know if this is a new thing or if I just happen to notice it cuz I had read this thread today. But I just came back from the grocery store and there is a new kind of Hershey's syrup called simply 5. Can you guess why it's called that? Because it has 'just five ingredients.' So apparently that wishy-washy rule is now officially a marketing item.3
-
I certainly prefer to get my nutrients from food as much as possible, and I do tend to prefer eating mostly foods that humans have been eating for hundreds or thousands of years. But it's just an eating preference, not a religion.
I haven't been Pollan-ated, but I do think some on this thread are taking Pollan's "rules" a little too literally. They're a little bit cutesy or tongue-in-cheek. That's how authors make things memorable.
For example, I'm betting that's intended to be a generic grandmother, not necessarily your very own personal grandmother. One of my very own personal grandmothers spent a winter living in a tent in Sweden, eating next to nothing . . . I don't think that means Pollan believes I should eat nothing but snow, for heaven's sake.
I love modern science, but it keeps moving, and will continue. During my lifetime (I'm 61), science has "discovered" many essential nutrients, and now they have RDAs that didn't exist when I was a child. But if I was eating a wide variety of healthful regular foods, I was eating them all along. The more I relied on "enriched" denatured sorts of foods, or on supplements, the more likely I was missing out on those undiscovered nutrients. I'm betting there will turn out to be many essential nutrients yet to be discovered.
Besides, I find food tasty and satisfying. Supplements and pills, not so much.3 -
Huh. I think some people might be taking his rules a little too seriously. They are't laws. Just recommendations written in a way that sells books.
I can't see anything harmful, health wise, in his advice.Buying prepackaged foods with fewer than 5 ingredients will often result in a better diet. I doubt that is refering to home cooking. And he probably is not refering to each individual gramdma out there.
Like any other author, he wants to sell his books and ideas. There's common sense in what he says,3 -
Huh. I think some people might be taking his rules a little too seriously. They are't laws. Just recommendations written in a way that sells books.
I can't see anything harmful, health wise, in his advice.Buying prepackaged foods with fewer than 5 ingredients will often result in a better diet. I doubt that is refering to home cooking. And he probably is not refering to each individual gramdma out there.
Like any other author, he wants to sell his books and ideas. There's common sense in what he says,
I totally agree. It's sad that some people take them literally and treat them as law instead of rules of thumb that basically say "eat well".1 -
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.
Just going to nitpick a wee bit...
1. my grandmother, let alone my great-grand mother wouldn't recognize most of what's in my lunch today as food (Japanese lunch...). As far as they would be concerned, no one in their right mind eats raw fish...
2. Nice... that means I get to eat a whole lot more than most people as I'm fluent in 5 languages and have a basic functional knowledge in 3 more and can usually pronounce things even if I don't understand what they mean. Being able to pronounce something doesn't mean much of anything as far as food is concerned. Also, I'd love to know how to make that wicked good red wine sauce I make with 5 or less ingredients...
3. Where I live that would lead to a diet of: chocolate, cereal, what ever is included in the frozen section, alcohol, kitchen wares and shower gels... The fruit/veggie section is in the middle as is the meat/cheese counter... The problem with comments like these is that it generalizes on a general layout as used in the US. Most of the world is not the US.
4. Erm... Twinkies cover some basic nutrition. They are food and can be eating in moderation if someone likes them. As with all things it's the dosage that makes the poison...
5. Never heard that one from German culture... Considering that the serving sizes in most German restaurants I've been too (quite a few if you want to know) are just obscene... well I'll leave the rest to that. In general I do agree. We as a society have forgotten what appropriate serving sizes look like.
6. Eating between meals never felt wrong. It's tradition to have a small snack at 9am and 3.30pm. School breaks in my part of the world are planned to incorporate that. But I do agree that eating together is a nice social habit. Makes food tastier and I tend to spend longer at the table and eat slower (too busy talking to eat). This said, it would be seriously weird here for someone to eat their meal separately from the others unless said others aren't at home. It's the traditional meal culture around here.
7. Great... so I can't buy my sandwich and apple at the gas station for lunch? It's the only place within 15 walking minutes of my work place that sells food. The alternative is taking the car and driving 15 minutes to find somewhere to buy food. To me that's a bit of a silly rule. It's the quantity which is the problem, not the location where one buys the food.
In my opinion, no one listens to the expert. They tend to listen to the woo-peddlers and snake-oil salesmen. When I listen to some of my coworkers it's down right frightening what people believe about food and nutrition.
It's not the experts that dictate what we eat, it's the marketing departments of large multinational companies wanting to make a buck.3 -
I certainly prefer to get my nutrients from food as much as possible, and I do tend to prefer eating mostly foods that humans have been eating for hundreds or thousands of years. But it's just an eating preference, not a religion.
I haven't been Pollan-ated, but I do think some on this thread are taking Pollan's "rules" a little too literally. They're a little bit cutesy or tongue-in-cheek. That's how authors make things memorable.
For example, I'm betting that's intended to be a generic grandmother, not necessarily your very own personal grandmother. One of my very own personal grandmothers spent a winter living in a tent in Sweden, eating next to nothing . . . I don't think that means Pollan believes I should eat nothing but snow, for heaven's sake.
I love modern science, but it keeps moving, and will continue. During my lifetime (I'm 61), science has "discovered" many essential nutrients, and now they have RDAs that didn't exist when I was a child. But if I was eating a wide variety of healthful regular foods, I was eating them all along. The more I relied on "enriched" denatured sorts of foods, or on supplements, the more likely I was missing out on those undiscovered nutrients. I'm betting there will turn out to be many essential nutrients yet to be discovered.
Besides, I find food tasty and satisfying. Supplements and pills, not so much.
But..but....I bet your grandmother was skinny...0 -
Some random thoughts.
I have a vintage Fanny Farmer cook book and it recommends a liberal application of lard on my roast. Fanny also depended a lot more on canned vegetables and dried herbs because food transport was not as sophisticated back then. You won't find a recipe calling for a handful of fresh basil.
Instead of the aisle rule how about the coupon rule? "If it comes with a coupon, don't eat it". Manufacturers come out with those coupons and it's a cold day before I find a coupon for apples.
1 -
Some random thoughts.
I have a vintage Fanny Farmer cook book and it recommends a liberal application of lard on my roast. Fanny also depended a lot more on canned vegetables and dried herbs because food transport was not as sophisticated back then. You won't find a recipe calling for a handful of fresh basil.
Instead of the aisle rule how about the coupon rule? "If it comes with a coupon, don't eat it". Manufacturers come out with those coupons and it's a cold day before I find a coupon for apples.
Never heard of the coupon rule but one of the stores I shop at has an in-store coupon system, MPerks, that frequently has coupons for fresh and frozen produce, meats, whole grains etc.
I don't follow any food rules except for the CICO one, I like keeping things simple
3 -
I've seen coupons for produce or things like plain pasta, beans, eggs, milk, meat.
I hate coupons and never use them (I'm not that organized and don't buy that much from my mainstream grocery anyway -- should use them for paper products or just join Costco already, really). But I would not agree to the coupon rule.
I don't mind the rules when they come from Pollan (which is rank hypocrisy, sure) because they are IMO not meant literally and are explained/given context in his other writing. Also, I don't see him as saying "this is the only way to eat healthfully" but "this is a general approach to eating healthfully that doesn't require stress and is simple and appeals to me." It also appeals to me, but I don't think it does to everyone, and that's cool, and I also break my own general approach all the time -- either doing so while staying true to the spirit, IMO, or for reasons. I don't worry about it, although I get warning people off an overly literal approach to such things (and I HATE the thing about how to shop since it presumes shopping is hard and needs an overly simplistic rule), since I have some obsessive tendencies when I get into stuff and certainly did take the approach too far once upon a time (before discovering Pollan and I would actually say Pollan is more of a counter to that, although someone who could probably understand the desire).
Like jmbmilholland said upthread, I do find the "agrarian" approach or even just thinking about how things were done in 1900 or whenever to be interesting. I know a decent amount about my greatgrandparents and DON'T want to trade lives or diets with them (mind involves much more temptation, but not all in a negative sense at all -- the diversity of cuisines and produce and just options is amazing). But I like the idea of more involvement with the food, more appreciation for it and where it comes from, more focus on seasons and what is actually local and how food is made available out of season (I'd like to start canning), and of course the focus on cooking itself (and gardening if possible). I also (again) love a lot of things about what's different now, but I think thinking about what's different now can be useful (and I don't mean in the "why are there 8 ingredients in my whatever" way. That the food environment is so different (in ways that are again good as much or more than bad) means that we have to be consciously mindful in a way they didn't -- they were mindful out of necessity and wouldn't have called it that, of course. So I wouldn't trade diets with my g-grandparents, but being more like them in some ways probably enriches my own diet and makes it easier for me to eat well.2 -
Just a side note, the point of my original post was to focus on the 4 myths that I just happen to find interesting. As far as the rules, I myself find them a bit hokey but I get where he is going with them. I personally don't take them too seriously. What I personally like about Pollan is his focus on not so much what we eat but how we eat...1
-
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.
I can't pronounce quinoa.....
0 -
I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.5 -
Just a side note, the point of my original post was to focus on the 4 myths that I just happen to find interesting. As far as the rules, I myself find them a bit hokey but I get where he is going with them. I personally don't take them too seriously. What I personally like about Pollan is his focus on not so much what we eat but how we eat...
Agreed.
(I'm a hypocrite since I think the rules are hokey but because I know the overall context they don't bug me that much from Pollan. From others, who I suspect really use such things as rules -- as if we need rules to know how to shop, sigh -- they drive me crazy. Like I said, maybe not fair.) ;-)1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
Ugh, this whole conversation is making me think of this: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/28/13728086/trump-literally-and-seriously
Not your fault, of course.If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
This is why it can't really be removed from the context of his overall writing and probably why I give it a pass from him, not in general. I think he's summing up so assumes you get the context, and won't take them to absurd extremes or use them in a way that perverts the spirit.My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
I don't think Pollan would disagree about this.
For example, if I were chatting with him and brought up how my great-grandparents ate and how I think it's better and worse than what I do, and the limits of focusing on that, I think it would find it an interesting conversation and join in, not see it as an attack.
On MFP, the same kinds of "rules" are often presented as the one and only way to "eat healthy" or (ugh) "clean," and if one raises the same kinds of concerns or tries to have a broader conversation about how things are better as well as worse (I'd say better in a huge number of ways) now vs. 1910 or whatever, you get anger and a refusal to engage -- the idea seems to be that the rules must not be questioned.
I suspect Pollan and I eat pretty similarly even though none of his "rules" (except 6, which I like) are ones that mean anything to me at all, and certainly are not ones I abide by.The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
This is the question, and I'm not sure except I think I know what he's talking about and I agree with his view on it. Not satisfying, I'm sure!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just a side note, the point of my original post was to focus on the 4 myths that I just happen to find interesting. As far as the rules, I myself find them a bit hokey but I get where he is going with them. I personally don't take them too seriously. What I personally like about Pollan is his focus on not so much what we eat but how we eat...
Agreed.
(I'm a hypocrite since I think the rules are hokey but because I know the overall context they don't bug me that much from Pollan. From others, who I suspect really use such things as rules -- as if we need rules to know how to shop, sigh -- they drive me crazy. Like I said, maybe not fair.) ;-)
Reminds me of this Zen quote...
"Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters..."2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
The issue is that people take these rules out of context. He always explains them when he talks about them or writes them. That's how people know when to disregard them or why they're there. He gets leeway because of the direction he is coming from. It's not the usual "eat clean or you die" that comes attached to arbitrary rules (even some of his rules are used in this context).
Now, I said I disagree with some of his ideas, and this is one of them. Simplistic rules are bound to be taken simplistically out of context and turned into arbitrary boundaries. It has been shown over and over again that proxies and "easy to remember" rules that treat people as dummies are bound to get distorted into something ugly in the process. We've seen it happen with recommendations from health organizations, writers, journalists, speakers, teachers.. etc.
3 -
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.
Exactly what I was going to post.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
Ugh, this whole conversation is making me think of this: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/28/13728086/trump-literally-and-seriously
Not your fault, of course.If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
This is why it can't really be removed from the context of his overall writing and probably why I give it a pass from him, not in general. I think he's summing up so assumes you get the context, and won't take them to absurd extremes or use them in a way that perverts the spirit.My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
I don't think Pollan would disagree about this.
For example, if I were chatting with him and brought up how my great-grandparents ate and how I think it's better and worse than what I do, and the limits of focusing on that, I think it would find it an interesting conversation and join in, not see it as an attack.
On MFP, the same kinds of "rules" are often presented as the one and only way to "eat healthy" or (ugh) "clean," and if one raises the same kinds of concerns or tries to have a broader conversation about how things are better as well as worse (I'd say better in a huge number of ways) now vs. 1910 or whatever, you get anger and a refusal to engage -- the idea seems to be that the rules must not be questioned.
I suspect Pollan and I eat pretty similarly even though none of his "rules" (except 6, which I like) are ones that mean anything to me at all, and certainly are not ones I abide by.The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
This is the question, and I'm not sure except I think I know what he's talking about and I agree with his view on it. Not satisfying, I'm sure!
Yes, I was intentionally evoking Trump there (sorry!).
I agree with you that his writing is more thoughtful and nuanced than just those rules would lead me to believe (if they were all I knew of him). I can understand why people know what he's talking about and don't have a problem with them. If they do lead to a broader conversation, I think they do good. If they're just adopted as "rules," then they are not as useful (but that's true of any guideline or rule -- if you're just following it without understanding why, it isn't a good thing and that has nothing to do with Pollan).0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
The issue is that people take these rules out of context. He always explains them when he talks about them or writes them. That's how people know when to disregard them or why they're there. He gets leeway because of the direction he is coming from. It's not the usual "eat clean or you die" that comes attached to arbitrary rules (even some of his rules are used in this context).
Now, I said I disagree with some of his ideas, and this is one of them. Simplistic rules are bound to be taken simplistically out of context and turned into arbitrary boundaries. It has been shown over and over again that proxies and "easy to remember" rules that treat people as dummies are bound to get distorted into something ugly in the process. We've seen it happen with recommendations from health organizations, writers, journalists, speakers, teachers.. etc.
I agree that in the context of his work (which I enjoy), these make much more sense.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
I think any person in any of the scenarios you described above probably wouldn't have to worry about it for very long because they're likely the same people we see on infomercials being crushed to death under an avalanche of mismatched tupperware.
I haven't read Pollan, but from what I understand he has entire books and not just random lists, so anyone who is actually interested in his views is going to get the "why" along with the rule if they take the time to read the book. A quick Google search of him brings up books and interviews - I even found a response where he admitted that Cracker Jacks were his favorite guilty pleasure food and that he has bought them at a gas station (and did not burst into flames or get kicked out of the Michael Pollan club) - so the information is out there for anyone who bothers to look. Choosing not to educate oneself is not a valid criticism of Pollan.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
I think any person in any of the scenarios you described above probably wouldn't have to worry about it for very long because they're likely the same people we see on infomercials being crushed to death under an avalanche of mismatched tupperware.
I haven't read Pollan, but from what I understand he has entire books and not just random lists, so anyone who is actually interested in his views is going to get the "why" along with the rule if they take the time to read the book. A quick Google search of him brings up books and interviews - I even found a response where he admitted that Cracker Jacks were his favorite guilty pleasure food and that he has bought them at a gas station (and did not burst into flames or get kicked out of the Michael Pollan club) - so the information is out there for anyone who bothers to look. Choosing not to educate oneself is not a valid criticism of Pollan.
He does write longer works, but his rules are pulled out and presented out of context relatively frequently.
I think a lot of people do have the ability to understand what Pollan is getting at, but I've seen enough threads here from people seriously confused about various rules, guidelines, and restrictions to know that not everyone who can be influenced by things like this is getting crushed to death by Tupperware.
I work with people who use the "five ingredient" rule seriously, the type of people who would buy that chocolate syrup that is mentioned up-thread just because of the number of ingredients. These aren't dumb people. We live in an environment where nutritional information and misinformation is being constantly thrown at us and we aren't born with the tools to interpret it and filter out the garbage. Smart people aren't immune to useless or harmful rules or guidelines, smart people aren't immune to applying the letter of a rule without understanding the spirit.
None of this is Pollan's fault and I don't have a serious issue with him (I think his work, on balance, is good). I do think that given his awareness of how nutritional myths spread and how much Americans (in particular) like to embrace "expert" theories, his rules being presented out of context by others is something that he could have anticipated -- not that it puts him at fault, but it's something that he probably could have predicted would happen. It's the overall good quality of his work that makes me wince at some of these rules (I think "Don't buy food where you buy gasoline" is particularly silly).2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I get the whole "take them seriously, not literally" thing (sorry, couldn't help myself), but if they aren't meant to be taken literally, I'm not sure how constructive they are.
Ugh, this whole conversation is making me think of this: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/28/13728086/trump-literally-and-seriously
Not your fault, of course.If they're meant to help people who aren't used to thinking much about food make better food choices, how do people know when to disregard them? If I don't understand *why* I'm shopping the parameter of the store, how do I know when to disregard the rule and buy rice and spices from a center aisle? If it isn't meant to be my grandmother, how do I know when to eat something that she wouldn't recognize?
This is why it can't really be removed from the context of his overall writing and probably why I give it a pass from him, not in general. I think he's summing up so assumes you get the context, and won't take them to absurd extremes or use them in a way that perverts the spirit.My point is that we can do better by helping people understand the *why* behind the general rule instead of expecting people to understand that a six-ingredient jar of olive tapenade is off-limits but not really off-limits and that sushi is okay even if your grandmother was an immigrant from Ireland.
I don't think Pollan would disagree about this.
For example, if I were chatting with him and brought up how my great-grandparents ate and how I think it's better and worse than what I do, and the limits of focusing on that, I think it would find it an interesting conversation and join in, not see it as an attack.
On MFP, the same kinds of "rules" are often presented as the one and only way to "eat healthy" or (ugh) "clean," and if one raises the same kinds of concerns or tries to have a broader conversation about how things are better as well as worse (I'd say better in a huge number of ways) now vs. 1910 or whatever, you get anger and a refusal to engage -- the idea seems to be that the rules must not be questioned.
I suspect Pollan and I eat pretty similarly even though none of his "rules" (except 6, which I like) are ones that mean anything to me at all, and certainly are not ones I abide by.The reason why I bring this up is that I think a lot of the myths that Pollan and others in his camp talk about can also be taken seriously but not literally so I'm not sure why Pollan gets so much leeway for his own set of somewhat arbitrary and not-always-helpful rules.
This is the question, and I'm not sure except I think I know what he's talking about and I agree with his view on it. Not satisfying, I'm sure!
Yes, I was intentionally evoking Trump there (sorry!).
I almost went there even before you posted, so can't blame you! (But apparently our minds went to the same place.)I agree with you that his writing is more thoughtful and nuanced than just those rules would lead me to believe (if they were all I knew of him). I can understand why people know what he's talking about and don't have a problem with them. If they do lead to a broader conversation, I think they do good. If they're just adopted as "rules," then they are not as useful (but that's true of any guideline or rule -- if you're just following it without understanding why, it isn't a good thing and that has nothing to do with Pollan).
Yeah, I agree with this.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I think a lot of people do have the ability to understand what Pollan is getting at, but I've seen enough threads here from people seriously confused about various rules, guidelines, and restrictions to know that not everyone who can be influenced by things like this is getting crushed to death by Tupperware.
I work with people who use the "five ingredient" rule seriously, the type of people who would buy that chocolate syrup that is mentioned up-thread just because of the number of ingredients. These aren't dumb people. We live in an environment where nutritional information and misinformation is being constantly thrown at us and we aren't born with the tools to interpret it and filter out the garbage. Smart people aren't immune to useless or harmful rules or guidelines, smart people aren't immune to applying the letter of a rule without understanding the spirit.
Yup. Much as I like Pollan (and don't blame him for the 5 ingredients thing or the -- ugh -- how to navigate a grocery store thing that won't go away*), I think the fact that there's a product (chocolate syrup!) trying to market the 5-ingredients thing demonstrates that some ARE taking it too literally and not understanding it for the spirit behind it. There really are people turning Pollan's own rules into a version of the myths he dislikes (who really think a syrup with 5 ingredients is somehow better than one with 6). Even though I defend Pollan, I don't see how denying that this happens and that it's bad is useful.
*Someone posted that it's not true to German stores and based on US standards, but the truth is that even in the US it's not really true to a lot of stores, and I've never understood why people repeat it as if it's profound or helpful at all. I mean, how is it even easier than saying (as if anyone needed help shopping, which is not the most complex of all activities, after all): go to perishables like produce, meat (if you eat it), eggs and dairy (same), as the main thing, if you are running low replace non-perishable staples (dried, canned, and frozen), and then maybe check out if there's anything else you want. Rules may vary based on specific eating style.
This actually seems truer to me to Pollan's general approach, really, then worrying about where in the supermarket something is or how many ingredients it has. Most of these things don't have more than one (maybe 2) ingredients, after all.1 -
These are actually good guidelines, but of course there's flaws in each "rule".0
-
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.
Okay, back to the myths, at OP's requests.
I think they're common underpinnings of how people think and behave when they're not thinking very hard about it, when they're just being compliant culture-bots, and speaking/acting more or less impulsively (none of which is intended as any insult to anyone, BTW - most of us behave that way most of the time, just out of expediency - it's impractical to re-think everything down to its roots).
The myths are especially common conceptual underpinnings here on MFP, because we talk about the related topics - food, eating, nutrition - very often (of course).
When any reflective person thinks consciously about the myths, they're likely to realize they have some problems.
Specifically, common instances where I see people using them as a foundation to build on, and in some cases why it's silly IMO, oversimplifying wildly on both sides of it:
Myth #!: Food is a delivery vehicle for nutrients. Underlies "what is the best protein powder for X purpose", "what supplement will help me lose", the whole "superfoods" concept, etc. Silly because (as I said in a post above) science keeps discovering essential nutrients that then require an RDA, when if we just ate a wide range good foodz, we'd be A-OK. And because of Myth #3.
Myth #2: We need experts to tell us how to eat. Underneath every appeal to an authority figure who's pre-digested the research - helpful though good pre-digesters may be, since most of us don't have the time, expertise, or energy to do comprehensive primary-source research on every blingin' factoid. Also underneath every post that says "Is perfectly sensible idea X correct" - "is it really true that if I eat fewer calories than I burn, I'll lose weight?" For some, nothing is true until someone else endorses it (which gives assertive people with strong opinions extra influence . . . that being one reason it's silly). And why is there a Freelee the banana girl, anyway? Or a Dr. Oz?
Myth #3: The whole point of eating is to maintain bodily health. This is the bedrock of MFP discussion, isn't it? People frequently admit to eating things they don't like, that their family won't eat; they admit avoiding social occasions because they can't estimate the calories, etc. Silly because evolutionarily stupid; reduces pleasure in our short, short lives; and leads to obsession and orthorexy.
Myth #4: There are evil foods and good foods. Do we even need to talk about this? Sugarzzz! Fatzzz! Meeeaatzzz! Soda Pop! Coffee! Adult bevs! Silly because, among other things, Myth #3.
Look, anytime you start breaking things down from concrete and continuous extensional analog reality, to start thinking with abstractions, you lose something. But you can't think or communicate until you do use abstractions. The problems come in when you lose awareness that abstractions are abstractions, and that they leave stuff out. People who have poor reading (or analytic or context-recognition) skills only exacerbate the problems.1 -
Look, anytime you start breaking things down from concrete and continuous extensional analog reality, to start thinking with abstractions, you lose something. But you can't think or communicate until you do use abstractions. The problems come in when you lose awareness that abstractions are abstractions, and that they leave stuff out. People who have poor reading (or analytic or context-recognition) skills only exacerbate the problems.
True indeed...1
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