Comments (4)

By jamie, April 12, 2010 11:20 am

Shameful public admission of the day: I’m a “new product” enthusiast. Hubby tries to fast forward through commercials or else I am almost guaranteed to say “Let’s try that!” or “Wow, they have a new flavor – we have to get it!” Legend has it that when I was a small child, I would talk and play through the entire television program, but heaven help you if you interrupted my TV commercials. Yes, I am an advertiser’s dream come true.

The last chapter of section 2 is the one you should probably read in the bookstore if you aren’t going to borrow or buy this book. It’s about the “industrialization” of food, and how, in just a few generations, we have processed out most of the nutrients in food in order to make them more profitable. We prefer cheaper food with a longer shelf life, so even our fruits and vegetables (and the animals who eat them and then end up on our tables) are no longer as nutrient-rich as they used to be because we breed for quantity instead of quality. In fact, it is now possible to have a nutrition deficiency and be obese at the same time!

If you are like me, after you read this section you will a little bit sad about all of those processed foods still in the cupboard, and even sadder that your kid(s) like(s) processed foods better than the “real” stuff.

There is some science in this chapter, but he simplifies it for us. Basically, we get too much omega-6 and not enough omega-3 (which is actually from plants, but plants contain less today than in previous generations). This could be the reason for so many Western diseases, but taking a supplement might not have as much benefit as consuming the plant that makes the stuff, so it seems that whole foods are really the only way to protect ourselves. Seaweed and algae are great sources of omega-3, which is why some fish have so much of is (but this is shifting as we farm fish as well). I seem to remember Alicia Silverstone peddling seaweed on a talk show and thinking that I can’t stand the way that stuff tastes, I don’t care how good it is for me. Yes, I looked it up for you – she wrote a book: The Kind Diet: A Simple Guide to Feeling Great, Losing Weight, and Saving the Planet.

For most of us, our food contains a lot of energy but not enough nutrition. We get way too much sugar, and a lot of what we eat (refined carbohydrates) converts directly to glucose because there is no real fiber in it (and adding it in as a supplement is not as beneficial). Pollan quotes an expert: “We’re in the middle of a national experiment in the mainlining of glucose.” Oh, dear.

Now I have a lot of questions:
- If we grow our own vegetables, will we get 1940s nutrition, or are the seeds messed up too?
- Should I take my daughter out of nursery school and learn about homeschooling for when she gets older, to help keep her from “mainlining glucose” too?
- Should I finally throw out my two year supply of sugar free drink mix, or should I keep using it because at least it’s encouraging me to drink water?
- Do I have to throw out my chocolate stash? (Please no)
- Should I go cold turkey on television commercials? (I love the ads in the magazines too – I won’t give those up)
- How on earth am I going to convince my family that we should eat mainly whole foods?
- Will I breastfeed the next baby too because of all I am learning, or will I still think formula is just as good? (No – I’m not pregnant)

(singing: “they tried to make me go to rehab, I said no no no…”)

Scroll down for other posts about In Defense of Food:

Other posts about In Defense of Food:
Review
Post 1: In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan
Post 2: Breakfast Cereal is not a Food?
Post 3: Chocolate Science
Post 4: “Hourly Yogurt Enemas?!”
Post 5: Hunting and Gathering
Post 6: Look Mom – No Cavities!
Post 7: Mainlining Glucose or “I’m Not an Addict!”
Post 8: Food is Religious and Political
Post 9: Whole Milk Sounds Almost Sinful
Post 10: I Don’t Like the Salad, Mommy
Post 11: Let’s Plant a Garden

Comments (7)

By jamie, April 10, 2010 7:28 pm

What have I eaten today? This morning I had hard boiled eggs, but mixed them with a little bit of mustard and light mayonnaise and spread them on white bread (we’re out of the whole wheat variety). My daughter and I shared an apple for a snack. Then for lunch I had a lot of strawberries, which I sweetened with real sugar (I used less than a tablespoon in total). I drank a glass of milk earlier, and since then have only had water to drink (not very much though). Tonight we had dinner from a Mexican restaurant (we brought it home) – there was a lot of chicken in my enchiladas, a green salad with real guacamole instead of dressing, and not too much cheese. The salsa tasted fresh. Today wasn’t too bad.

Here is how Pollan defines the “Western diet”: “lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything except fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.” As I said, today wasn’t TOO bad – for me. My daughter had Cheerios and milk, processed yogurt puffs, Ritz crackers, string cheese, and a chocolate cupcake left over from her school party (mine is waiting for me for later) in addition to her apple. She tasted the strawberries (without sugar), but didn’t like them today (sometimes she loves them). She ate chicken and rice at dinner, and drank milk and water – no juice today. Not great.

Chapter 2 of section 2 is titled “The Elephant in the Room” and is about the Western diet, and how it seems to accompany “Western diseases,” including “heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, stroke, appendicitis, diverticulits, malformed dental arches, tooth decay, varicose veins, ulcers, [and] hemorrhoids.” It’s worse than I thought it was – evidently, these ailments only seem to happen once a population adopts our way of eating.

I can understand diabetes and hypertension, but tooth decay? Really? A Canadian-born dentist, Weston A. Price, studied this back in the 1930s, and found that people who did not follow the Western diet had “no need of dentists whatsoever” – they had almost no tooth decay, regardless of whether they ate mostly seafood, mostly meat, or mainly fruits, vegetables and grains. In fact, what they ate did not seem to matter at all, even if they left out entire food groups, as long as they did not eat like we do. I was surprised to read that.

Just this week my daughter had her well-child visit, and the pediatrician said it’s time to schedule her first dental appointment. We are also supposed to brush her teeth with fluoride toothpaste after each meal and before bedtime. When he told us that, I felt a little bit of worry that we won’t do a satisfactory job of helping her keep her teeth cleaned (sometimes she cooperates, and sometimes she doesn’t) and she will get a cavities on her baby teeth. Maybe if I keep her away from too much processed food I can worry about this less.

Scroll down for other posts about In Defense of Food:

Other posts about In Defense of Food:
Review
Post 1: In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan
Post 2: Breakfast Cereal is not a Food?
Post 3: Chocolate Science
Post 4: “Hourly Yogurt Enemas?!”
Post 5: Hunting and Gathering
Post 6: Look Mom – No Cavities!
Post 7: Mainlining Glucose or “I’m Not an Addict!”
Post 8: Food is Religious and Political
Post 9: Whole Milk Sounds Almost Sinful
Post 10: I Don’t Like the Salad, Mommy
Post 11: Let’s Plant a Garden

Comments (6)

By jamie, April 9, 2010 3:10 pm

We have known for a century now that there is a complex of so-called Western diseases–including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and a specific set of diet-related cancers–that begin almost invariably to appear soon after a people abandons its traditional diet and way of life. – Michael Pollan

A lot of people think The Biggest Loser is fake, that it’s impossible for people to lose weight and improve their health as quickly as the people do on that show. I know that the contestants exercise for long periods of time that most of the rest of us could not possibly accomplish given our busy lives, but my reading for today leads me to believe that dramatic results are possible if we make drastic changes (and I think some of us may need to make drastic changes). And I’m not just talking about weight loss – there are a lot of thin people who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or even type 2 diabetes. For parents, we might be able to help our kids avoid certain health problems if we adjust certain things in our diets.

Section 2 is titled “The Western Diet and the Diseases of Civilization.” I read the first chapter today – it’s about an experiment that was conducted in 1982 with a group of Aborigines in Australia who had moved from the bush, adopted the Western diet, became overweight,and developed high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes. They were taken back to the bush, where they would have to hunt their own food and where they would not have access to the diet they had become accustomed to eating.

The results were astonishing. In just seven weeks, they each lost an average of nearly 18 pounds (not as dramatic as on The Biggest Loser, but these men were not morbidly obese to begin with), their blood pressure and tryglycerides dropped, their tissues showed higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and they either “greatly improved” or “completely normalized” their blood sugars. In seven weeks. Because they ate much better and a got a lot more physical activity.

I’m not saying we all should become hunter-gatherers, but I am starting to actually feel motivated to make some bigger changes. Since I read Master Your Metabolism, I have been trying to cut out certain junk foods – we’ve been trying to eat up what we have and we haven’t bought too much more. But we have bought some. We put candy in the Easter baskets for the kids (our little girl and our four year old nephew who was visiting), but not so much that we’ll all be eating candy for the next several months. We’ve purchased tortilla chips, ice cream cones, and few other things. I don’t want to be the strict parent who doesn’t ever allow her kids to eat ice cream or candy, and I am pretty sure I will continue have Twizzlers at least once a year.

When I track my intake, it seems that at least half of my calories come from carbohydrates (I guess I follow the Western diet). I guess this has to change. I have a lot of book recommendations from you guys that might give me some suggestions (or additional motivation) to shift that. This book has kept me eating hard boiled eggs and fresh strawberries (not at the same time) instead of dipping into that (modest) candy stash, so today is a good day.

Scroll down for other posts about In Defense of Food:

Other posts about In Defense of Food:
Review
Post 1: In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan
Post 2: Breakfast Cereal is not a Food?
Post 3: Chocolate Science
Post 4: “Hourly Yogurt Enemas?!”
Post 5: Hunting and Gathering
Post 6: Look Mom – No Cavities!
Post 7: Mainlining Glucose or “I’m Not an Addict!”
Post 8: Food is Religious and Political
Post 9: Whole Milk Sounds Almost Sinful
Post 10: I Don’t Like the Salad, Mommy
Post 11: Let’s Plant a Garden

Comments (5)

By jamie, April 8, 2010 3:21 pm

People used to pay “a small fortune” for, among other things, “hourly yogurt enemas” at the Kelloggs Battle Creek sanitarium, in order to improve their health. And here I used to be embarrassed about the week I only drank orange rind tea, or the time I did the cabbage soup diet, or the time when… well, that might still be embarrassing – I think I’ll keep that one to myself. Reading chapters 7-10 really brought it home for me that we really do not know which foods are better than others – should we have more protein, carbs, or fats? What kinds? Is the U.S. food pyramid the result of extensive, accurate scientific research, or partly a nod to manufacturers of carbohydrates? Yikes.

To illustrate just how much we don’t know, Pollan quotes a study from psychologist, Paul Rosin, at the University of Pennsylvania – he asked people to “Assume you are alone on a desert island for one year and you can have water and one other food. Pick the food that you think would be best for your health.” Choices: “corn, alfalfa sprouts, hot dogs, spinach, peaches, bananas, milk chocolate.” So which food did you choose? (The correct answer is at the end of this post.)

I had a little debate with my husband about this book because he doesn’t like the implication that processed foods are not “food” when, as he correctly explained, they provide calories and nutrition just like “natural” food (he thinks it is “stunty”, and I see his point). He says that processing foods, even things like milk, makes them less likely to make us sick, and that we should support food science because it has benefited us, over all. I like it when my reading sparks discussion!

I’m excited to have hubby read this section, and you should read it too, since I will not be able to do it justice. Basically, it is impossible to accurately study nutrition. If we isolate each particle from a food, we can theoretically determine whether that particle has an effect on health, but we would have to control for all other factors (what else is eaten, what is not being eaten, etc.) Also, each component of a particular food may act differently when isolated, and have a completely different effect on the body if left in the food (I can’t help but think of infant formula here, and how it has so far been impossible to perfectly duplicate human milk – I have always said that breast is not necessarily best, and I stand by that, but I guess some part of me is unsure, because I nursed my daughter for 14 months). It is also necessary to compare effects when the food is cooked, or when anything else is eaten with the food, so we can’t just give people nutrient capsules and monitor the health differences of those who partake of the nutrient and those who do not.

Also, we have to rely on self reporting when we study diet, because we can’t have people move into a lab for several years, or have a lab tech accurately measure and log everything that goes into the mouth of each study participant. I know we all say that we are honest, but how many of us have at least stretched the truth a bit when asked about what we ate? Or, if we haven’t lied, how many of us know the exact amount of each thing we have eaten, including the precise amount of cooking oil or seasoning? Impossible, even if we cook and measure everything we eat!

So, there is a lot we don’t know, and a lot we can’t really find out. Yet we jump on bandwagons, such as low-fat, low-carb, etc., seemingly because they are built on solid research. Tricky. Pollan stands with some food scientists when he says it would probably be better to study the effects of whole foods instead of particular nutrients, and I see their point.

Oh, Rosin’s food quiz: If you chose either hot dogs or milk chocolate, good for you! They would sustain you better than the other options. Less than 10% of Rosin’s subjects chose one of these answers, so don’t feel bad if you were wrong. Most people chose bananas.

Scroll down for other posts about In Defense of Food:

Other posts about In Defense of Food:
Review
Post 1: In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan
Post 2: Breakfast Cereal is not a Food?
Post 3: Chocolate Science
Post 4: “Hourly Yogurt Enemas?!”
Post 5: Hunting and Gathering
Post 6: Look Mom – No Cavities!
Post 7: Mainlining Glucose or “I’m Not an Addict!”
Post 8: Food is Religious and Political
Post 9: Whole Milk Sounds Almost Sinful
Post 10: I Don’t Like the Salad, Mommy
Post 11: Let’s Plant a Garden

Comments (6)

By jamie,

Last night at dinner, my little girl (who recently turned two years old!), decided she would rather have a little “snack” from her Easter basket instead of eating dinner (yeah, I bought her candy for Easter – don’t judge). She started yelling “I NEED YOU CANDY!!” over and over again. I thought about this as I read chapters 4-6 today, since they mentioned a candy company paying for a university position to study the health properties of chocolate. Do you think that the university will soon release a study finding lots of terrific health properties in chocolate? It seems as though the answer might be yes. Evidently, a lot of studies funded by a various sections of the food industry have found health benefits for the product peddled by their funding source (I guess it’s fairly easy to find a link when specifically looking for it).

This section mostly discusses the “lipid hypothesis”, which basically states that chronic disease is often caused by eating a high fat diet. Doctors put their patients on low-fat diets, people switch to low-fat versions of their favorite products (including cookies, ice cream, etc. – dieting without deprivation!) in order to lose weight, and consumers, thinking these products are healthier for them, eat larger quantities of foods labeled “low-fat”. This way of eating has not made us healthier, and has made some of us fatter.

How much scientific evidence is there for the lipid hypothesis? As it turns out, not much. Trans fats, on the other hand, are the devil, and always were, even when we were being led to believe that eating them in place of saturated fats could save our lives. Fascinating.

This section also talks about how food engineers tinker with ingredients to make foods appear healthier (according to various standards), and how the processed food industry is particularly happy about this because it helps justify the consumption of more processed foods.

I always wondered about those commercials for “pork, the other white meat”- how can the same animal that we get bacon from be just as healthy for us as fish or chicken? There is even a website dedicated to this campaign. You may have guessed that pigs have been genetically and otherwise engineered to produce leaner meat in order for this label to make any sense. So even though processed foods seem to be the best potential money-maker (you can’t easily add omega 3 to a carrot, but you can add it to pancake mix) “natural” food sources are tinkered with as well.

One natural whole food that has earned an enthusiastic marketing campaign is the pomegranate, which Pollan refers to as “a fruit formerly more trouble to eat than it was worth.” I mention this here to say that I have been a fan of these tasty treats since I was a kid – my dad brought them home from someone who had a tree when we were kids. They stain your fingernails (and everything else), but they are definitely worth the trouble. So, I’m bragging a bit to say that I ate them before the food industry told me to.

Scroll down for other posts about In Defense of Food:

Other posts about In Defense of Food:
Review
Post 1: In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan
Post 2: Breakfast Cereal is not a Food?
Post 3: Chocolate Science
Post 4: “Hourly Yogurt Enemas?!”
Post 5: Hunting and Gathering
Post 6: Look Mom – No Cavities!
Post 7: Mainlining Glucose or “I’m Not an Addict!”
Post 8: Food is Religious and Political
Post 9: Whole Milk Sounds Almost Sinful
Post 10: I Don’t Like the Salad, Mommy
Post 11: Let’s Plant a Garden