3 ms·

The only trendy food advice I'll ever follow is Michael Pollan's: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

by ericyd 2y ago

thefz 2y ago
I remind this motto as bell but he should have put emphasis on "food you made"
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  His definition of food is narrower than just edible things. I recall the book discussed processed vs more "raw" foods.
  - frereubu 2y ago
    The definition I've heard of his for "food" in this sentence was "things your grandparents would recognise", although by this point it might be "your great-grandparents".
- slothtrop 2y ago
  He does, the above was a misquote: what he says is "eat real food". Making it yourself helps ensure that.
  - ericyd 2y ago
    It's not a misquote unless he misquoted himself https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t...
gushogg-blake 2y ago
This advice has always come off as paternalistic to me, like the emphasis is on people just not being able to control themselves or something. The first part is obvious. The second part smuggles in a fundamentally incorrect take on the "eating too much"/obesity problem, namely that it has something to do with willpower: including "not too much" in the advice implies that we need to be told not to eat too much, but that a diet that naturally induces overeating is otherwise OK. The third part is arbitrary and unfounded, and if you ignore it you can ignore the second part as well: get some good fatty meat on your plate and you can safely eat to satiety.
- ericyd 2y ago
  I don't think of the second part being about self control and obesity, to me it's just a reinforcement of the idea that each person has different caloric requirements and you should respect your own needs. Of course it's vague so open to interpretation. The third part feels as arbitrary and unfounded as any other dietary advice I read, so I'm inclined to take the simplest advice available.
- pton_xd 2y ago
  > The first part is obvious. Is it, though? It seems like many struggle with the first part. Does snacking on a vending machine Duchess Honey Bun or a sleeve of Oreos qualify as "eat food?" How about popping open a cup of instant ramen or microwaving some frozen taquitos? I'd call all of that eating junk, but I think that's the root of the issue.
  - gushogg-blake 2y ago
    No I guess there must be some people for whom it isn't obvious. I was kind of assuming the intended audience for the advice was people who are interested enough in diet to look at a book on nutrition, for example, not people who just eat junk without thinking about it. But yes for those people I do think the "eat food" thing should be emphasised and laid out in more detail, maybe. Hard for me to have an opinion there as I just can't put myself in the shoes of someone who eats that kind of stuff.
tsimionescu 2y ago
Per this spiffy quote, it's a better idea to eat a bag of potato chips fried in palm oil than to eat a stake. I think it can safely be ignored.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  To be fair, Pollan would specifically not consider a bag of potato chips food. It's not included here but he specifically is talking about "real" food and not ultra processed snacks, etc. I think it's still an oversimplification - people with large amounts of muscle mass, low body fat, and high levels of daily physical activity just don't get a lot of the same metabolic diseases even if they eat huge amounts of animal protein, outside of really poor genetic luck (or complications related to steroid use, etc.) - but it's a pretty good starting point vs. the modern diet.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    If he has his own special meaning of the common word "food", then it's no longer a spiffy quote. And now you need to get into all the nitty gritty of this recommendation to actually take any advice from it. Even this term "ultra-processed" is highly suspect when you start investigating it more deeply. Plenty of traditional foods are quite processed - bread being one of the oldest. Is it better to eat 200g of bread (artisanal, wood fired, using traditionally-milled non-GMO pesticide free grains), or a steak?
    - cthalupa 2y ago
      Sure. I don't think the quote is super useful - just pointing out that if you were to ask him, he'd say that the potato chips aren't food. > Is it better to eat 200g of bread (artisanal, wood fired, using traditionally-milled non-GMO pesticide free grains), or a steak? I don't think there's a real answer here in a vacuum. It depends on what else you eat, your current health, your level of physical activity, etc.

The only trendy food advice I'll ever follow is Michael Pollan's: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

by ericyd 2y ago

The only trendy food advice I'll ever follow is Michael Pollan's: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

thefz 2y ago

I remind this motto as bell but he should have put emphasis on "food you made"

jvanderbot 2y ago
His definition of food is narrower than just edible things. I recall the book discussed processed vs more "raw" foods.
- frereubu 2y ago
  The definition I've heard of his for "food" in this sentence was "things your grandparents would recognise", although by this point it might be "your great-grandparents".
slothtrop 2y ago
He does, the above was a misquote: what he says is "eat real food". Making it yourself helps ensure that.
- ericyd 2y ago
  It's not a misquote unless he misquoted himself https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t...

gushogg-blake 2y ago

This advice has always come off as paternalistic to me, like the emphasis is on people just not being able to control themselves or something. The first part is obvious. The second part smuggles in a fundamentally incorrect take on the "eating too much"/obesity problem, namely that it has something to do with willpower: including "not too much" in the advice implies that we need to be told not to eat too much, but that a diet that naturally induces overeating is otherwise OK. The third part is arbitrary and unfounded, and if you ignore it you can ignore the second part as well: get some good fatty meat on your plate and you can safely eat to satiety.

ericyd 2y ago
I don't think of the second part being about self control and obesity, to me it's just a reinforcement of the idea that each person has different caloric requirements and you should respect your own needs. Of course it's vague so open to interpretation. The third part feels as arbitrary and unfounded as any other dietary advice I read, so I'm inclined to take the simplest advice available.
pton_xd 2y ago
> The first part is obvious. Is it, though? It seems like many struggle with the first part. Does snacking on a vending machine Duchess Honey Bun or a sleeve of Oreos qualify as "eat food?" How about popping open a cup of instant ramen or microwaving some frozen taquitos? I'd call all of that eating junk, but I think that's the root of the issue.
- gushogg-blake 2y ago
  No I guess there must be some people for whom it isn't obvious. I was kind of assuming the intended audience for the advice was people who are interested enough in diet to look at a book on nutrition, for example, not people who just eat junk without thinking about it. But yes for those people I do think the "eat food" thing should be emphasised and laid out in more detail, maybe. Hard for me to have an opinion there as I just can't put myself in the shoes of someone who eats that kind of stuff.

tsimionescu 2y ago

Per this spiffy quote, it's a better idea to eat a bag of potato chips fried in palm oil than to eat a stake. I think it can safely be ignored.

cthalupa 2y ago
To be fair, Pollan would specifically not consider a bag of potato chips food. It's not included here but he specifically is talking about "real" food and not ultra processed snacks, etc. I think it's still an oversimplification - people with large amounts of muscle mass, low body fat, and high levels of daily physical activity just don't get a lot of the same metabolic diseases even if they eat huge amounts of animal protein, outside of really poor genetic luck (or complications related to steroid use, etc.) - but it's a pretty good starting point vs. the modern diet.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  If he has his own special meaning of the common word "food", then it's no longer a spiffy quote. And now you need to get into all the nitty gritty of this recommendation to actually take any advice from it. Even this term "ultra-processed" is highly suspect when you start investigating it more deeply. Plenty of traditional foods are quite processed - bread being one of the oldest. Is it better to eat 200g of bread (artisanal, wood fired, using traditionally-milled non-GMO pesticide free grains), or a steak?
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    Sure. I don't think the quote is super useful - just pointing out that if you were to ask him, he'd say that the potato chips aren't food. > Is it better to eat 200g of bread (artisanal, wood fired, using traditionally-milled non-GMO pesticide free grains), or a steak? I don't think there's a real answer here in a vacuum. It depends on what else you eat, your current health, your level of physical activity, etc.