“Hourly Yogurt Enemas?!” – In Defense of Food #4
Comments (5) 
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
). It’s about a woman who starts to shrink after she ingests a very specific, yet not-yet-discovered, mix of chemicals. I remember that one of them was hairspray, and, if I’m not mistaken, the final ingredient was a free sample of cheese spread in the grocery store. (How fitting that the last straw would be processed food.) I remember being terrified for weeks afterward that I would somehow, inadvertently, consume the wrong mix of ingredients and that something bad would happen to me as a result, even though I knew the story was fiction, and that it was supposed to be a comedy at that. Oh, the nightmares. Thanks, Lily Tomlin! 
