The short(ish) version, in my words: I'm sure everyone here has noticed that a lot of 'food science' (at least the food science journalism) seems to come in fads. First fat was bad, then carbs...
The short(ish) version, in my words:
I'm sure everyone here has noticed that a lot of 'food science' (at least the food science journalism) seems to come in fads. First fat was bad, then carbs were bad, now sugar and gluten are bad. Vitamin C was good, then Omega 3, then pro-biotics. He points out the marketing strategy that is at play here - processed food can always cut out whatever nutrient is 'bad' at the moment, and artificially add what is 'good'. This allows processed foods to be marketed as healthy, when they definitely are not.
He also provides an anecdote about how, in 1977, when diet related diseases were increasing, the government released some pretty common sense public health advice regarding diet- "eat less red meat and dairy". The meat and dairy industry caused such a ruckus, the government re-wrote the guidelines to ”Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake.”. This is used to make a larger point regarding how nutrients are used as a scape goat, how 'health advice' often doesn't include 'eat less', and how the government is prioritising the profits of food industry groups over actual health outcomes.
Pollan describes 'Nutritionism' as a food ideology that separates food into nutrients. Since nutrients are invisible to the human eye, it makes us reliant on outside advice to know what is healthy and what isn't. It also allows processed food to be considered healthy so long as it has the right nutrients. He makes the observation that Americans have only gotten more and more obese and unhealthy since nutritionism became fashionable.
Pollan also provides quotes from actual Nutritionists who argue that it's pointless to consider the health of nutrients on their own, outside of the context of the food they are in, and the diet the food is it. He argues that, while reductionism is ok as an exploratory scientific tool, the results are not reliable enough to base our diets on. He provides the example of 'fruit reduces cancer'. It is apparently true, but when you take the nutrients out of the fruit and eat them as a supplement, they don't reduce cancer (and may even increase the risk of it instead).
He makes the argument that the western diet has, broadly speaking, reduced the intake of 'leaves', and replaced them with 'seeds' (grains), which is unhealthy.
He also makes the argument that, before 'food science', people relied on culture to figure out what to eat (and they were/are much healthier).
In conclusion, he recommends that to be healthy we:
eat less
stay away from processed foods as much as possible
There is no reason to read this. It is simply an anti-science article, therefore all statements can be boiled down to "I don't understand the science, therefore it is wrong" with a side of "there...
There is no reason to read this. It is simply an anti-science article, therefore all statements can be boiled down to "I don't understand the science, therefore it is wrong" with a side of "there are some bad things in this category, therefore the entire category is bad". There are so many points that irritated me that I wanted to refute here, but I figured about halfway through that there was no point to being more specific than the arguments I have just listed.
This is a bit of a shame because I genuinely think that the advice he gives at the start of the article - advice he is famous for - is legitimately good advice.
I suggest you do read it. His assertions are backed up with science. He is not anti-science, he makes the (correct) observation that food and digestion is an extremely complicated science with a...
I suggest you do read it. His assertions are backed up with science.
He is not anti-science, he makes the (correct) observation that food and digestion is an extremely complicated science with a lot of variables to consider. More research needs to be done before we base our health decisions off studies that regularly contradict each other, in a field that is still developing its understanding of how food chemicals and digestion works.
I did read it. Thus, my conclusion. The thing about it that bothers me is that I actually agree with his conclusions, but not the way he gets to them. I find it extremely problematic. The diet...
I did read it. Thus, my conclusion.
The thing about it that bothers me is that I actually agree with his conclusions, but not the way he gets to them. I find it extremely problematic.
The diet fads he talks about, weather complete diets or truisms like "increase nutrient X and decrease nutrient Y" are not bad because the science behind them are bad, but because the people who are following these rules typically do not understand nutrition as a whole, do not fully understand the findings of recent studies, do not understand that a single study is not going to give definitive answers, or quite simply are acting from secondhand sources which were never correct in the first place. Look at all the people who cut out gluten from their diets in spite of having absolutely no benefits for them to do so. Heck, there are many diet fads that don't even come from scientific studies! Fad diets are bad, but it's not because of science.
When he mentioned the French Paradox, I wanted to scream. There is no French Paradox. French people do not violate the laws of thermodynamics. French people ear a lot more fat than Americans were when this term came out, but they were also eating significantly less food overall. It turns out that fat helps you to feel full.
But that is not the only time I wanted to tell out "thats not how that works!" He misrepresents the way science works in just about every fourth or fifth paragraph. Even early on, he disingenuously starts painting food science as bad simply because it makes it more complex. And yes, it is disingenuous - he literally starts using jargon to make it seem more complex than it needs to be.
My interpretation is that he is not painting the scientific process itself as bad, but instead the way the way scientific results are presented to the public, and leveraged by industry in food...
My interpretation is that he is not painting the scientific process itself as bad, but instead the way the way scientific results are presented to the public, and leveraged by industry in food advertisement. The article is not aimed at the scientific community (he deferred to their expertise on several points), he is arguing about the publics perception of food science, to the public.
The Nutrition scientist quoted in the article said that the health of nutrients should not be considered independently of the food they are in. That is certainly not the way that journalists / health bodies / corporations present scientific results to the public. The public should be disregarding scientific studies if they are not being explained properly/ they don’t have the expertise to understand the full context of the results.
So in other words, he’s making exactly the same argument that you have in your post. But he’s aiming it at the general public, in a way that he hopes could change culture.
Also, regarding the French paradox, this is what was actually said in the article :
In the case of the French paradox, it may not be the dietary nutrients that keep the French healthy (lots of saturated fat and alcohol?!) so much as the dietary habits: small portions, no seconds or snacking, communal meals — and the serious pleasure taken in eating. (Worrying about diet can’t possibly be good for you.) Let culture be your guide, not science.
I get that! I really do. And let me say that I actually really respect this author. I think he is terrific at his job. I know he is not anti-science. The problem I have with this article is that...
So in other words, he’s making exactly the same argument that you have in your post.
I get that! I really do. And let me say that I actually really respect this author. I think he is terrific at his job. I know he is not anti-science. The problem I have with this article is that the way he starts building up to his conclusions involves anti-science arguments. My problem isn't the destination, it's the journey to get there.
That being said, I seemed to have somehow skipped that part when he was talking about the French Paradox. Thank you for clarifying the issue.
The short(ish) version, in my words:
I'm sure everyone here has noticed that a lot of 'food science' (at least the food science journalism) seems to come in fads. First fat was bad, then carbs were bad, now sugar and gluten are bad. Vitamin C was good, then Omega 3, then pro-biotics. He points out the marketing strategy that is at play here - processed food can always cut out whatever nutrient is 'bad' at the moment, and artificially add what is 'good'. This allows processed foods to be marketed as healthy, when they definitely are not.
He also provides an anecdote about how, in 1977, when diet related diseases were increasing, the government released some pretty common sense public health advice regarding diet- "eat less red meat and dairy". The meat and dairy industry caused such a ruckus, the government re-wrote the guidelines to ”Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake.”. This is used to make a larger point regarding how nutrients are used as a scape goat, how 'health advice' often doesn't include 'eat less', and how the government is prioritising the profits of food industry groups over actual health outcomes.
Pollan describes 'Nutritionism' as a food ideology that separates food into nutrients. Since nutrients are invisible to the human eye, it makes us reliant on outside advice to know what is healthy and what isn't. It also allows processed food to be considered healthy so long as it has the right nutrients. He makes the observation that Americans have only gotten more and more obese and unhealthy since nutritionism became fashionable.
Pollan also provides quotes from actual Nutritionists who argue that it's pointless to consider the health of nutrients on their own, outside of the context of the food they are in, and the diet the food is it. He argues that, while reductionism is ok as an exploratory scientific tool, the results are not reliable enough to base our diets on. He provides the example of 'fruit reduces cancer'. It is apparently true, but when you take the nutrients out of the fruit and eat them as a supplement, they don't reduce cancer (and may even increase the risk of it instead).
He makes the argument that the western diet has, broadly speaking, reduced the intake of 'leaves', and replaced them with 'seeds' (grains), which is unhealthy.
He also makes the argument that, before 'food science', people relied on culture to figure out what to eat (and they were/are much healthier).
In conclusion, he recommends that to be healthy we:
But suppose you're not much interested in eating leaves most of the time? I guess we'll have to find some second-best advice somewhere else?
There is no reason to read this. It is simply an anti-science article, therefore all statements can be boiled down to "I don't understand the science, therefore it is wrong" with a side of "there are some bad things in this category, therefore the entire category is bad". There are so many points that irritated me that I wanted to refute here, but I figured about halfway through that there was no point to being more specific than the arguments I have just listed.
This is a bit of a shame because I genuinely think that the advice he gives at the start of the article - advice he is famous for - is legitimately good advice.
I suggest you do read it. His assertions are backed up with science.
He is not anti-science, he makes the (correct) observation that food and digestion is an extremely complicated science with a lot of variables to consider. More research needs to be done before we base our health decisions off studies that regularly contradict each other, in a field that is still developing its understanding of how food chemicals and digestion works.
I did read it. Thus, my conclusion.
The thing about it that bothers me is that I actually agree with his conclusions, but not the way he gets to them. I find it extremely problematic.
The diet fads he talks about, weather complete diets or truisms like "increase nutrient X and decrease nutrient Y" are not bad because the science behind them are bad, but because the people who are following these rules typically do not understand nutrition as a whole, do not fully understand the findings of recent studies, do not understand that a single study is not going to give definitive answers, or quite simply are acting from secondhand sources which were never correct in the first place. Look at all the people who cut out gluten from their diets in spite of having absolutely no benefits for them to do so. Heck, there are many diet fads that don't even come from scientific studies! Fad diets are bad, but it's not because of science.
When he mentioned the French Paradox, I wanted to scream. There is no French Paradox. French people do not violate the laws of thermodynamics. French people ear a lot more fat than Americans were when this term came out, but they were also eating significantly less food overall. It turns out that fat helps you to feel full.
But that is not the only time I wanted to tell out "thats not how that works!" He misrepresents the way science works in just about every fourth or fifth paragraph. Even early on, he disingenuously starts painting food science as bad simply because it makes it more complex. And yes, it is disingenuous - he literally starts using jargon to make it seem more complex than it needs to be.
My interpretation is that he is not painting the scientific process itself as bad, but instead the way the way scientific results are presented to the public, and leveraged by industry in food advertisement. The article is not aimed at the scientific community (he deferred to their expertise on several points), he is arguing about the publics perception of food science, to the public.
The Nutrition scientist quoted in the article said that the health of nutrients should not be considered independently of the food they are in. That is certainly not the way that journalists / health bodies / corporations present scientific results to the public. The public should be disregarding scientific studies if they are not being explained properly/ they don’t have the expertise to understand the full context of the results.
So in other words, he’s making exactly the same argument that you have in your post. But he’s aiming it at the general public, in a way that he hopes could change culture.
Also, regarding the French paradox, this is what was actually said in the article :
I get that! I really do. And let me say that I actually really respect this author. I think he is terrific at his job. I know he is not anti-science. The problem I have with this article is that the way he starts building up to his conclusions involves anti-science arguments. My problem isn't the destination, it's the journey to get there.
That being said, I seemed to have somehow skipped that part when he was talking about the French Paradox. Thank you for clarifying the issue.
For something he says is so complicated, he certainly does make some pretty bold claims at the end.