huge topic:Americans keep getting fatter

[meadandale]

I’m currently reading In Defense Of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto by Michael Pollan. Based on some of the opinions I’ve read in this thread it seems that some of you need to read it. Much of what you think you know (which you’ve been fed by the media) is wrong.

[ocrenter]

for example?

[ocrenter]

for example?

[ocrenter]

for example?

[ocrenter]

for example?

[ocrenter]

for example?

[meadandale]

In Defense of Food

Food. There’s plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we’re consuming today is not food, and how we’re consuming it — in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone — is not really eating. Instead of food, we’re consuming “edible foodlike substances” — no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach — what he calls nutritionism — and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context — out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan’s bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan’s last book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is another great book…which I’ve also read.

[meadandale]

In Defense of Food

Food. There’s plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we’re consuming today is not food, and how we’re consuming it — in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone — is not really eating. Instead of food, we’re consuming “edible foodlike substances” — no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach — what he calls nutritionism — and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context — out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan’s bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan’s last book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is another great book…which I’ve also read.

[meadandale]

In Defense of Food

Food. There’s plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we’re consuming today is not food, and how we’re consuming it — in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone — is not really eating. Instead of food, we’re consuming “edible foodlike substances” — no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach — what he calls nutritionism — and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context — out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan’s bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan’s last book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is another great book…which I’ve also read.

[meadandale]

In Defense of Food

Food. There’s plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we’re consuming today is not food, and how we’re consuming it — in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone — is not really eating. Instead of food, we’re consuming “edible foodlike substances” — no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach — what he calls nutritionism — and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context — out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan’s bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan’s last book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is another great book…which I’ve also read.

[meadandale]

In Defense of Food

Food. There’s plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we’re consuming today is not food, and how we’re consuming it — in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone — is not really eating. Instead of food, we’re consuming “edible foodlike substances” — no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach — what he calls nutritionism — and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context — out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan’s bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan’s last book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma is another great book…which I’ve also read.

[jpinpb]

I have to agree w/ocr on the juice. I see so many parents giving kids juice all day long thinking it’s healthy and better than sodas. But juice is lacking fiber and it’s fruit broken down to sugar, basically. People swarm Jamba Juice thinking they’re healthy by having smoothies. Sugar is addicting, whether carbs or juice. That’s what makes it hard to give up.

I do eat fruit, whatever is in season, apples, blueberries, apricots. But I rarely have juice. I might go for a Green Machine once in a while. That’s not all fruit juice. Last weekend I went to Ki’s and had a Super Mix w/beet, carrot, celery, spinach juice. Wasn’t the tastiest, sweetest thing to touch my tongue. Washed it down w/some wheatgrass. I really had energy the rest of the day.

Once your body is purified, it really uses and absorbs nutrients. But as I said, it’s not fun. My husband eats ice cream and I eat an apricot. {sigh}

[jpinpb]

I have to agree w/ocr on the juice. I see so many parents giving kids juice all day long thinking it’s healthy and better than sodas. But juice is lacking fiber and it’s fruit broken down to sugar, basically. People swarm Jamba Juice thinking they’re healthy by having smoothies. Sugar is addicting, whether carbs or juice. That’s what makes it hard to give up.

I do eat fruit, whatever is in season, apples, blueberries, apricots. But I rarely have juice. I might go for a Green Machine once in a while. That’s not all fruit juice. Last weekend I went to Ki’s and had a Super Mix w/beet, carrot, celery, spinach juice. Wasn’t the tastiest, sweetest thing to touch my tongue. Washed it down w/some wheatgrass. I really had energy the rest of the day.

Once your body is purified, it really uses and absorbs nutrients. But as I said, it’s not fun. My husband eats ice cream and I eat an apricot. {sigh}

[jpinpb]

I have to agree w/ocr on the juice. I see so many parents giving kids juice all day long thinking it’s healthy and better than sodas. But juice is lacking fiber and it’s fruit broken down to sugar, basically. People swarm Jamba Juice thinking they’re healthy by having smoothies. Sugar is addicting, whether carbs or juice. That’s what makes it hard to give up.

I do eat fruit, whatever is in season, apples, blueberries, apricots. But I rarely have juice. I might go for a Green Machine once in a while. That’s not all fruit juice. Last weekend I went to Ki’s and had a Super Mix w/beet, carrot, celery, spinach juice. Wasn’t the tastiest, sweetest thing to touch my tongue. Washed it down w/some wheatgrass. I really had energy the rest of the day.

Once your body is purified, it really uses and absorbs nutrients. But as I said, it’s not fun. My husband eats ice cream and I eat an apricot. {sigh}

[jpinpb]

I have to agree w/ocr on the juice. I see so many parents giving kids juice all day long thinking it’s healthy and better than sodas. But juice is lacking fiber and it’s fruit broken down to sugar, basically. People swarm Jamba Juice thinking they’re healthy by having smoothies. Sugar is addicting, whether carbs or juice. That’s what makes it hard to give up.

I do eat fruit, whatever is in season, apples, blueberries, apricots. But I rarely have juice. I might go for a Green Machine once in a while. That’s not all fruit juice. Last weekend I went to Ki’s and had a Super Mix w/beet, carrot, celery, spinach juice. Wasn’t the tastiest, sweetest thing to touch my tongue. Washed it down w/some wheatgrass. I really had energy the rest of the day.

Once your body is purified, it really uses and absorbs nutrients. But as I said, it’s not fun. My husband eats ice cream and I eat an apricot. {sigh}

[Author]

Posts