Pollan's famous "maxim" manages to be condescending, unhelpful and inaccurate - all at the same time. Eat food: duh Not too much: again, thanks? Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet. Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning. Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new st…
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
41–50 of 191 posts
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'facts' that I referred to are the results of correlation studies as published in science journals. The diets you mention are mainstream fads. You're right, though, it is frustrating! My personal opinion is that it is the way we use food for pleasure and comfort that it is to blame. We are literally getting high on what we eat, which is deleterious for health if performed without break for long periods. But there…
You can get high on carbs or alcohol sure enough. Try getting high on protein or fat though. Telling carboholics they need to eat less food is like telling alcoholics they need to drink less liquid. It doesn't work - you've got to be more specific.
And are you sure about protein? Personally I experience a strong desire for meat if I haven't had any for a few days. The fulfillment of that desire creates a visceral pleasure. Furthermore I can't imagine giving up apparently innocuous items like tomatoes, either. For a few months perhaps but after a few years I'm sure I would pine at the memory of fresh juicy tomatoes.
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#43Pollan's famous "maxim" manages to be condescending, unhelpful and inaccurate - all at the same time. Eat food: duh Not too much: again, thanks? Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet. Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning. Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new st…
You jump pretty readily to a conclusion that isn't in what's said. "Plants" covers a diverse group of foods, some of which are the most nutrient rich available to us.
You can eat nothing but potatoes, which are filled with starch, but a diet filled with plants is much more likely to involve a rich variety of very healthy foods. Some of these foods would be things like spinach, kale, carrots, beetroot, beans, sweet potatoes, blueberries, apples, bananas, strawberries, buckwheat, avocados, courgettes, onions and peppers.
There's definitely starch and sugars in these, but you'd be hard pressed to eat them to anything like a toxic degree. To get them to a toxic degree, you'd need to eat processed food in quantity, which isn't what the maxim, which is undoubtably glib, is suggesting you do.
I agree with your comment about food being used as yet another status symbol, and I generally find that a particularly unpleasant and tiresome way to treat something as essential as eating. I'd disagree that Pollan is the patron saint of foodies, though. He's perhaps the patron saint of plant-eating, slightly ascetic or vegan foodies. He's certainly not the patron saint of the paleo or keto crowd, both of which are very vocal and often produce very obnoxious members of the "food as status symbol" group.
Out of interest, what would you recommend as a good, healthful diet? As you can probably guess from my reply, I think Pollan's maxim, which is certainly glib, offers a good working basis for a healthy diet.
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#44Pollan's famous "maxim" manages to be condescending, unhelpful and inaccurate - all at the same time. Eat food: duh Not too much: again, thanks? Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet. Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning. Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new st…
"Eat fruit and vegetables" has been the suggestion every doctor I've seen gives, and until now I assumed everyone interpreted that to also include leafy greens and legumes.
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#45Ha, I'd love to hear what the soylent folks would say about this passage.
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#46Some of the conclusions seem a little quacky here to me - like "avoid ingredients you can't pronounce" and a lot of "avoid processed anything". While I'm sure there's some arguable benefits to these things, I think it's paranoid or stupid to dismiss something just for being "processed". What the heck does that mean anyway? All our food is processed in one form or another and nothing about something being more process…
Yes I am inclined to agree. There are a few lines in what I read that shoot up red flags (I only read the first 25% and last 10%). However I agree with the overall advice. I read somewhere that its best to avoid any food that is sold in packaging. I try to stick to that within reason.
"Don’t buy any food you’ve ever seen advertised."
https://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/omnivores_dilemma_aut...
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#47When I eat carbs, I put on weight. When I don't, I lose weight. However, other people I know are the opposite. Quite honestly, I think you can't generalise 'diets' or eating advice as, frankly, it would appear that different people's bodies work in slightly different ways. This could explain the vast array of different advice that, often times, seems contradictory.
The best diet is to try some things(experiment) and do whatever works best, not what feels best. Too many of these diets read like they are the most fun thing to do in the world. Also a lot of people have the tendency to get their goal and then stop the diet only to gain weight again (then dismiss the diet because it didn't work) And this gain shows how people can work differently inside. Some will not gain back the weight after a diet, others would need to diet for life.
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#48Pollan's famous "maxim" manages to be condescending, unhelpful and inaccurate - all at the same time. Eat food: duh Not too much: again, thanks? Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet. Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning. Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new st…
Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet. You jump pretty readily to a conclusion that isn't in what's said. "Plants" covers a diverse group of foods, some of which are the most nutrient rich available to us. You can eat nothing but potatoes, which are filled with starch, but a diet filled with plants is much more likely to involve a rich variety of very healthy foods. So…
That's some meme. Which ones exactly? The most nutrient-dense foods (per gram / per kcal) available to us are livers, other organs, eggs and ruminant meat --- even before accounting for the latters' vastly superior digestability and bio-availability, and even before accounting for the formers' countless antinutrients. Fresh not processed/salted/cured/etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpxqGa1PQc8
The widespread micro-nutrient-power fantasies about vegetation come mostly from back when they discovered ascorbic acid (aka "vitamin C") and how meat doesn't have it but plants do. Quite the feast for marketers! By the time they found out we don't need ascorbic acid per-se, just generally "a sufficient source of ascorbate" (which fresh meat is but preserved isn't --- hence the frequent scurvy back in the day with the 'limeys'/sailors/arctic explorers who insisted on their biscuits and canned meats rather than the game/fish around them), nobody cared for such pesky details..
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#49"When William Prout isolated the big three macronutrients, scientists figured they now understood food and what the body needs from it; when the vitamins were isolated a few decades later, scientists thought, O.K., now we really understand food and what the body needs to be healthy; today it’s the polyphenols and carotenoids that seem all-important. But who knows what the hell else is going on deep in the soul of a c…
What a joke, the only thing that's known for sure about "polyphenols" (and practically all non-vitamin "antioxidants", that was the previous hype) is that a healthy human body rapidly excretes them, as well it should.
The rest is hype, speculation, and the everlasting quest for the next "superfood"..
Carotenoids, okay, anything that's in egg yolks gets my stamp of approval. Of course the much-loved beta-carotin is drastically useless and pales in comparison to any source of (nonsynthetic) preformed Vitamin A from non-carnivore sources.. (and who the heck eats carnivores!)
Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)
#50When I eat carbs, I put on weight. When I don't, I lose weight. However, other people I know are the opposite. Quite honestly, I think you can't generalise 'diets' or eating advice as, frankly, it would appear that different people's bodies work in slightly different ways. This could explain the vast array of different advice that, often times, seems contradictory.
lowering fats would work as well since itd lower overall calories.