The omnivore's dilemma

[vfem]

Now, I started reading this a couple weeks ago. Being a super busy mom, spring being around the corner and my husband being out of work and bugging me CONSTANTLY to entertain him... I haven't gotten too far. However, I try to grab the book and hide when I can to get in a couple of pages.

Do you know my husband grew up in Iowa? In farm country and knew NONE of this. He admitted how familiar all of it sounded. Talking to his mom, she admits that NO ONE discusses what goes on. Its not even common knowledge outside the 'industry'. So, I found myself reading several pages to my husband last night, and amazingly he was intrigued and shocked.(Not enough interest to read it, but if they made the movie I'm sure he's watch it... but anyways....)

I am pretty sure that several of you have read it. And I thought a discussion would be nice.

I know there will be rants, and many views on many parts... but I think it is a great topic. Not only that, but to be armed with this knowledge and not use it?! What a waste of a great book.

Here I am saying great book... can you tell I really am into it?!

But I'm only 65 pages in! Yep, just started reading "The Feedlot".
And I bet I'll be up until 2 in the morning in a reading frenzy.

Point is, I have so many views my head could spin.... I can never look at corn the same, that's for sure.

 

[Greenthumb18]

Wow vfem that sure does sound like an interesting book! I've never heard of it before i need to get myself a copy.
I'm sure we can all learn from this book, including your husband .


Enjoy reading the rest of the book!

 

[boggybranch]

Here's a link to a review....

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

 

[vfem]

Here's a link to a review....

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

Have you read it boggy? Have you any thoughts?

 

[beavis]

Watch the oscar-nominated movie Food Inc. from this year.

You'll never look at food the same way again....

 

[boggybranch]

Here's a link to a review....

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

Have you read it boggy? Have you any thoughts?

Haven't read it.....yet. Does sound like it would be interesting, tho. And I am a book nut. Kinda keep us "on the hook" with tibits. (I'm not a dork fish...so tibits, not corndogs.......LOL)

 

[curly_kate]

I've read it some time last year, and I think it is fascinating. Whether you agree with his politics or not, the bottom line is that it's important to be aware of where your food comes from. I'm not sure if it was in his book or an interview I heard/read with him, but he made mention of how we spend weeks or months researching when determining what TV, laptop, or car we buy, but we don't think twice about what we consume to sustain our lives.

The chapter on corn blew my mind as well.

 

[wifezilla]

I have a problem with his "mostly plants" idea. It ignores a lot of biology. Even he made this comment in an email to a reader....

" Here is an email exchange I had with him after reading "In Defense of Food":

My email:

Hello, I've been enjoying your latest book "In Defense of Food" and waiting eagerly to get to the part about "Mostly Plants".. because it's the one part I didn't understand. I've done quite a bit of reading about diet and health in the last few years, including "Omnivore's Dilemma" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories", but also more obscure things like "The Cholesterol Myths" and some of Weston Price's work although not his whole book yet.

So I must confess I am a bit disappointed and confused by the recommendations and statements in the "Mostly Plants" chapter. You say that nutrition experts are unanimous about the benefits of a plant based diet, but you've been preaching the whole book how little we can trust nutrition experts. The claims made about the benefits of eating lots of plants, or even vegetarianism aren't backed up by anything solid. (You even mentioned previously about the confounding issues with vegetarian lifestyles). But what really got me was this statement:

"So what about eating meat? Plants we can't live without, but we don't need to eat meat..."

But just a few chapters earlier we read about the Masai who thrive on a diet of Meat, blood, and milk; and the Eskimos who "seldom eat anything remotely green". You go on to say "Price found groups that ate diets of wild animal flesh to be generally healthier than the agriculturalists who relied on cereals and other plant foods". Clearly, we can live without plants. Then you talk about the plant-rich diet of our ancestors, but if we look at what the aboriginals in the diabetes study reverted to eating, it was:

Seafood, birds, kangaroo, witchetty grubs (fatty!), turtle, crocodile, kangaroo, yams, figs, and bush honey.

To my eyes, that doesn't look like "Mostly Plants"

Don't get me wrong, I like plants and I think they are great food. I eat lots of fresh vegetables and some fruits (mostly berries) sourced as locally as possible. But I also eat lots of grass fed beef, pastured chicken & eggs, pork, lamb, etc and I don't understand why you would recommend animal foods (including dairy and eggs) be limited in a healthy diet. I haven't seen any credible evidence to support that one. Whole human societies that have thrived on nothing but animal products (any arctic society) with very low incidence of the degenerative diseases vegetables supposedly protect from suggest it is simply not true.

His reply:

Jay:
Thanks for your note. I managed not to please anyone with the mostly plants message--vegetarians who felt I didn't go far enough (why not ALL plants?) and weston pricey's who thought I didn't embrace meat firmly enough. I agree, the public health message demonizing meat has been overblown, but I also think the meat available to most Americans is not health food. If we could all eat traditional meat --grass fed-- it would be a different matter, but we can't. There are also serious environmental and justice issues with eating the grain fed meat available to most Americans. And you can't go wrong eating lots of plants.
So that was my thinking. Feel free to disagree.
Thanks for taking the trouble to write."
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=400622&page=4&highlight=michael+pollan+wifezilla

 

[Reinbeau]

The book is awesome, I read it when it came out - and I have no problem with his message, because it brings awareness to all of the problems with our food supply. Dickering over 'mostly plants' misses the whole picture that's presented in the book. Our food is no longer raised in a manner that promotes good health, that's the bottom line.

 

[boggybranch]

I have a problem with his "mostly plants" idea. It ignores a lot of biology. Even he made this comment in an email to a reader....

" Here is an email exchange I had with him after reading "In Defense of Food":

My email:

Hello, I've been enjoying your latest book "In Defense of Food" and waiting eagerly to get to the part about "Mostly Plants".. because it's the one part I didn't understand. I've done quite a bit of reading about diet and health in the last few years, including "Omnivore's Dilemma" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories", but also more obscure things like "The Cholesterol Myths" and some of Weston Price's work although not his whole book yet.

So I must confess I am a bit disappointed and confused by the recommendations and statements in the "Mostly Plants" chapter. You say that nutrition experts are unanimous about the benefits of a plant based diet, but you've been preaching the whole book how little we can trust nutrition experts. The claims made about the benefits of eating lots of plants, or even vegetarianism aren't backed up by anything solid. (You even mentioned previously about the confounding issues with vegetarian lifestyles). But what really got me was this statement:

"So what about eating meat? Plants we can't live without, but we don't need to eat meat..."

But just a few chapters earlier we read about the Masai who thrive on a diet of Meat, blood, and milk; and the Eskimos who "seldom eat anything remotely green". You go on to say "Price found groups that ate diets of wild animal flesh to be generally healthier than the agriculturalists who relied on cereals and other plant foods". Clearly, we can live without plants. Then you talk about the plant-rich diet of our ancestors, but if we look at what the aboriginals in the diabetes study reverted to eating, it was:

Seafood, birds, kangaroo, witchetty grubs (fatty!), turtle, crocodile, kangaroo, yams, figs, and bush honey.

To my eyes, that doesn't look like "Mostly Plants"

Don't get me wrong, I like plants and I think they are great food. I eat lots of fresh vegetables and some fruits (mostly berries) sourced as locally as possible. But I also eat lots of grass fed beef, pastured chicken & eggs, pork, lamb, etc and I don't understand why you would recommend animal foods (including dairy and eggs) be limited in a healthy diet. I haven't seen any credible evidence to support that one. Whole human societies that have thrived on nothing but animal products (any arctic society) with very low incidence of the degenerative diseases vegetables supposedly protect from suggest it is simply not true.

His reply:

Jay:
Thanks for your note. I managed not to please anyone with the mostly plants message--vegetarians who felt I didn't go far enough (why not ALL plants?) and weston pricey's who thought I didn't embrace meat firmly enough. I agree, the public health message demonizing meat has been overblown, but I also think the meat available to most Americans is not health food. If we could all eat traditional meat --grass fed-- it would be a different matter, but we can't. There are also serious environmental and justice issues with eating the grain fed meat available to most Americans. And you can't go wrong eating lots of plants.
So that was my thinking. Feel free to disagree.
Thanks for taking the trouble to write."
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=400622&page=4&highlight=michael+pollan+wifezilla

Well....this pretty much makes up my mind. Call it a brain clitch or what ever...but when I'm reading a book and it contradicts itself.....I no longer have an interest or trust in it's endeavor. Have lost interest in many books because of just such as this. An author that has contradictions in one of his/her books, usually, has them in their other ones as well......and I HATE getting interested in a book and then run across a contradiction.