I just finished In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan's follow-up to The Omnivore's Dilemma. It's a much shorter book, 200 pages as opposed to 400. It's a faster read (I sat down and read it in an evening) because much of the basis of the book has already been discussed in the first book. It is, however, very helpful in considering how to change one's diet in consideration of everything that has been learned over the course of these books.
The three main points in this book are: 1) Eat Food. 2) Less of it. 3) Mostly Plants.
Taken at face value, these seem so simple as to be a waste of one's time. However, he actually spells them out in very helpful ways. (I also purchased Food Rules, where there is even more detail)
Eat Food, for example, seems basic until Pollan explains that much of what is on the shelves in the grocery store isn't actually food, but rather carefully manufactured products that are engineered as to seem to meet our requirements, but fail due to our lack of understanding as to how many foods actually benefit us. We simply don't understand how a lot of food works, and Pollan spends much of the book exploring our knowledge (and lack thereof) and how that has led us to the trouble we are in.
He blames much of this on nutrionism, the idea that the food we eat is basically a vehicle for transporting certain nutrients, like protein or fat, into the body. He discusses, at length, how the Western Diet has been so focused on the transfer of nutrients as to miss out on many of the negative effects of foods we eat. (He points to the fact that Cocoa Puffs can be labeled as heart healthy as a pretty good sign that we're headed in the wrong direction.)
So when Pollan tells us to eat food, he's discussing things that actually look like what they started out as, foods that resemble what they are in nature, foods that have ingredients we can pronounce and that our great-grandmothers would recognize. (I still don't know what Cool Whip is. Yes, it's cool, and yes, it's whipped, but just what is it that has been whipped?)
Eat less of it. Well, we could all stand to eat a little less food. Especially the sugars and refined carbs that we ingest in large quantities. He compares the Americans to the French--Americans eat until all the food in front of them is gone, while the French eat until they are full. Guess which mode of thinking is healthier?
Mostly plants. We don't understand exactly how the nutrients and micronutrients and antioxidants in plants and fruits work together, but they make us healthier in ways that multi-vitamins and engineered food cannot. Meat is not bad, although Pollan will question how authentic meat is that has been through massive processing plants and fed diets of corn and soybeans. The more plants we eat, the healthier we will be.
Pollan's book asks us to make sacrifices for our diets. Are we willing to spend more money and more time, invest more thought and energy into preparing our food? It takes an American an average of four minutes to clean up dinner--a meal prepared by Pollan's guidelines will take far more. He recognizes that not everyone can afford to eat this way, but for those who can, what is stopping them? It will make us healthier. Probably happier. And we'll save money in the long run because we won't have as many problems with diabetes and heart problems. So they cost may be negated. It's a fascinating read, but it may change the way you see your food!
NY Times review of In Defense of Food
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Michael Pollan | ||||
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment