From what I know about him, Polan is a secular Jew, but I found the final portion of his book very spiritual and moving. He quotes the Christian writer, Wendall Berry, numerous times and even discusses why it is good to say a blessing.
Eating is a tremendously spiritual, sacred practice. Jesus knew this-- one of Christianity's main practices centers on eating. What we eat exemplifies our stewardship of creation. And not only of the created world around us, but the creation God has imparted us to care for-- our own bodies. Our skyrocketing health care costs are a direct consequence of our horrendous failure as stewards of creation. I would argue that if we ate differently, our health care crisis would go away.
Secondly, eating is spiritual because eating is relational. Creation depends on us to steward it well, and we depend on creation for sustenance. All of us depend on the same planet. In that way, we are all interconnected. Polan talks about the importance of going to farmer's markets, not just to get good food, but to meet the person feeding you. He argues that there is something important about the farmer looking the consumer in the eye when he sells him some produce. It's a lot harder to sell salmonella-infected vegetables to someone when you have to meet and greet the buyer.
Anne and I have come to the conclusion that eating well is something worth spending the extra cash on. Why wouldn't you spend a little more on something you put into your body on a constant basis? People research their new T.V. much more than they research what they eat. That is incredible to me. What's more incredible though is how much of our health problems-- and I would argue social problems-- are rooted in or linked to the ways greed and selfishness have affected our diet and food production. The good news is that the solutions are simple: eat food as God intended it to be, and develop eating practices that have been around since the dawn of civilization. The bad news is that our culture and economy want to create food products that are cheap and quick to make. So just like living a life that is, morally, how things were intended to be goes against the ways of the world around us, it seems that eating how we were intended to does as well.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
You Are What You Eat- Part 4
I'm just skimming the surface of what Polan has to say about the reductionist science of nutritionism, processing, and the Western diet and all of the diseases that come with it. I found his research to be eye-opening, logical and clear-headed. But this book isn't just about how screwed up the American diet is, it's about changing one's eating habits as well. So what does Polan suggest? Polan's solution isn't focused on teaching the reader to eat foods containing only certain nutrients, or to only eat organic or become vegan. Instead he offers a simple mantra: Eat Food, Mostly Plants, Not too Much.
Eating food means eating whole foods, or foods made with a minimum amount of easily recognizable ingredients. "Mostly plants" is obvious. People should eat mainly fruits, grains and vegetables. This is the one I struggle most with because while I like vegetables, I generally tend to eat them the least. Concerning meat, Polan argues that meat should be more of a condiment than a main dish. He also points out that commercially produced animals are pumped full of hormones and pharmaceuticals, and eat horrible diets. On top of the dreadful conditions these animals live in (which is reason enough not to consume them), and all the crap they are given, the person who eats them is eating what they have eaten. In other words, all of the horrible things put into these animals is put into you when you eat them. Thus, Polan argues that it is best to buy meat that has been "grass finished," or better yet, to hunt and kill your own meat. It is true that animals who have been raised in cruelty-free environments and have been fed healthy food produce much more expensive meat, but if one is eating much less meat, then the price shouldn't be a huge issue.
The last part of the mantra, "Not too much" is also obvious. Americans are notoriously "big eaters," and-- go figure-- Americans are notoriously obese. Polan suggests that Americans should take up eating practices of other (healthier!) cultures, eat smaller portions and take more time to eat. Taking more time allows the body to digest the food and let the eater know he is full. When we shovel food into our mouth our body doesn't have the time to let us know we are full before it's too late. Polan also says that we need to not eat alone. He says that food should be a communal experience where relationships are strengthened and bonds are made. It's interesting to point out that a gateway into a culture is its diet. Food is often a great starting point for people of different countries or cultures to begin learning about one another. It is something we all have in common.
Eating food means eating whole foods, or foods made with a minimum amount of easily recognizable ingredients. "Mostly plants" is obvious. People should eat mainly fruits, grains and vegetables. This is the one I struggle most with because while I like vegetables, I generally tend to eat them the least. Concerning meat, Polan argues that meat should be more of a condiment than a main dish. He also points out that commercially produced animals are pumped full of hormones and pharmaceuticals, and eat horrible diets. On top of the dreadful conditions these animals live in (which is reason enough not to consume them), and all the crap they are given, the person who eats them is eating what they have eaten. In other words, all of the horrible things put into these animals is put into you when you eat them. Thus, Polan argues that it is best to buy meat that has been "grass finished," or better yet, to hunt and kill your own meat. It is true that animals who have been raised in cruelty-free environments and have been fed healthy food produce much more expensive meat, but if one is eating much less meat, then the price shouldn't be a huge issue.
The last part of the mantra, "Not too much" is also obvious. Americans are notoriously "big eaters," and-- go figure-- Americans are notoriously obese. Polan suggests that Americans should take up eating practices of other (healthier!) cultures, eat smaller portions and take more time to eat. Taking more time allows the body to digest the food and let the eater know he is full. When we shovel food into our mouth our body doesn't have the time to let us know we are full before it's too late. Polan also says that we need to not eat alone. He says that food should be a communal experience where relationships are strengthened and bonds are made. It's interesting to point out that a gateway into a culture is its diet. Food is often a great starting point for people of different countries or cultures to begin learning about one another. It is something we all have in common.
Monday, February 16, 2009
You Are What You Eat- Part 3
The book I read where this information comes from is called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Polan. It was a great and informative read. Polan argues that the Western diet has made us more unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are obsessed more about the nutrients they take in than ever before. The problem with focusing on nutrients, Polan argues, is that nutrients have a food context, food comes from a cuisine, and a cuisine comes from cultures that have existed for a long periods of time living in the same place and eating the same things. So people have adapted to their diets for thousands of years. But more importantly, these cuisines usually consist of whole foods with little processing.
Processing makes foods last longer and makes them cheaper, but also strips them of their nutrients. Polan uses the example of a Twinkie, and how it never goes bad. Why doesn't it go bad? Because it has no nutritional value. We are in competition with micro-organisms for the nutrition found in food. If it will rot then that means it's good for you; micro-organisms want to eat it for the same reasons we do. Yet instead of eating foods that will spoil, we have a culture that lives off food which will last forever-- hamburger helper, macaroni and cheese, canned soup and pasta-- and much of this food amounts to a lot of empty calories and carbohydrates. In other words, we might have a crap ton of food in this country, but much of it is poor quality, and has to be fortified with vitamins because of the ways it is preserved. And while fortified food is better than non-fortified food, it's just not that same as "real food"-- that is, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat that comes from animals that had healthy diets themselves. Take whole grain.
For years we've been eating white bread made from refined flour. Refined flour-- or the plain white flour in your pantry-- is made by stripping the grain of most of it's nutritional value (the germ) leaving the starch and protein. Why strip it of the germ? Because removing the germ causes the flour to last much longer. Before this discovery, flour would rot rather quickly. When people first began living off of bread made from refined flour they began developing deficiency diseases. It wasn't until the thirties, with the discovery of vitamins, that this problem was solved. And in 1996 folic acid began to be added to flour as well, because people were deficient in folic acid. It hasn't been till recently that we've seen food companies and the media encouraging to us eat "whole grains."
Processing makes foods last longer and makes them cheaper, but also strips them of their nutrients. Polan uses the example of a Twinkie, and how it never goes bad. Why doesn't it go bad? Because it has no nutritional value. We are in competition with micro-organisms for the nutrition found in food. If it will rot then that means it's good for you; micro-organisms want to eat it for the same reasons we do. Yet instead of eating foods that will spoil, we have a culture that lives off food which will last forever-- hamburger helper, macaroni and cheese, canned soup and pasta-- and much of this food amounts to a lot of empty calories and carbohydrates. In other words, we might have a crap ton of food in this country, but much of it is poor quality, and has to be fortified with vitamins because of the ways it is preserved. And while fortified food is better than non-fortified food, it's just not that same as "real food"-- that is, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat that comes from animals that had healthy diets themselves. Take whole grain.
For years we've been eating white bread made from refined flour. Refined flour-- or the plain white flour in your pantry-- is made by stripping the grain of most of it's nutritional value (the germ) leaving the starch and protein. Why strip it of the germ? Because removing the germ causes the flour to last much longer. Before this discovery, flour would rot rather quickly. When people first began living off of bread made from refined flour they began developing deficiency diseases. It wasn't until the thirties, with the discovery of vitamins, that this problem was solved. And in 1996 folic acid began to be added to flour as well, because people were deficient in folic acid. It hasn't been till recently that we've seen food companies and the media encouraging to us eat "whole grains."
Saturday, February 14, 2009
You Are What You Eat- Part 2
We've all been to the store and seen food packages loaded with health claims-- "high in fiber", "low in fat", "heart healthy." There is big money in these claims. Scientists are paid to research nutrition. When they make a "discovery" like, say, I don't know, that all fat isn't evil, and some, like omega 3 polyunsaturated fat, is good for you, food companies start churning out products that are "high in "omega 3s." And it doesn't matter what that food is. I have orange juice that Tropicana somehow got omega 3s into. The idea is that we can make any food-- even pop! -- good for us if we simply add certain nutrients to it. The problem, however, is that food is more than the sum of its parts.
Take beta-carotene for example. In carrots, beta-carotene is an incredibly healthful anti-oxidant. Thus, the logic was that if we could just put some beta-carotene in a pill and take it as a supplement, then we wouldn't have to do the dirty work of eating carrots or other beta-carotene rich food. But that logic was wrong. In fact not only did it not work, but taking B-C in supplement form could actually be bad for you. Why? Because for some unknown reason the body metabolizes B-C in a beneficial way when it comes from carrots or other foods, but not when it's taken alone. It could be something in the carrot, or it could be something even more complex like a combination of acids in the stomach and other things in the carrot.
Another great example is milk. When milk has fat removed from it, it loses its creamy milk texture, and in order to restore some of that texture, non-fat dry milk is added. However, non-fat dry milk contains oxidized cholesterol, which is actually worse for you than regular cholesterol. On top of that, milk contains fat-soluble vitamins which, needless to say, the body needs fat to properly digest. So removing the fat negates the purpose of drinking milk in the first place!
Take beta-carotene for example. In carrots, beta-carotene is an incredibly healthful anti-oxidant. Thus, the logic was that if we could just put some beta-carotene in a pill and take it as a supplement, then we wouldn't have to do the dirty work of eating carrots or other beta-carotene rich food. But that logic was wrong. In fact not only did it not work, but taking B-C in supplement form could actually be bad for you. Why? Because for some unknown reason the body metabolizes B-C in a beneficial way when it comes from carrots or other foods, but not when it's taken alone. It could be something in the carrot, or it could be something even more complex like a combination of acids in the stomach and other things in the carrot.
Another great example is milk. When milk has fat removed from it, it loses its creamy milk texture, and in order to restore some of that texture, non-fat dry milk is added. However, non-fat dry milk contains oxidized cholesterol, which is actually worse for you than regular cholesterol. On top of that, milk contains fat-soluble vitamins which, needless to say, the body needs fat to properly digest. So removing the fat negates the purpose of drinking milk in the first place!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
You Are What You Eat- Part 1
It's been pointed out repeatedly that we live in a culture where we are always trying to get the biggest and the best, and do things in the shortest amount of time. To acquire that new I Pod, cell phone or car we are constantly trying to cheapen the things we spend money on to survive and live; and do things faster so we can work more hours. And in this uniquely American way of life, we have developed a uniquely American diet to facilitate our mission for acquiring more shit.
I have, for several years now, been trying to eat more healthy. In my various health care related classes I have learned about the evils of saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, and the wonders of fiber and omega 3 polyunsaturated fats. I haven't always done the most stellar job, but I've tried my best. I've done this not because of my weight, but because I care about things like dying of cancer, heart disease or a MI. But these efforts have unfortunately been misguided. While I tried to stay up-to-date on the latest trends in nutritionism, I, like most Americans, have completely missed the point of why many of us are so unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are more health conscious than ever before.
What we're missing is something much bigger than just eating things that have more of this nutrient or less of that, for food is more than the sum of it's parts, and eating is an intricate, relational exercise. A book I read recently explores this idea and it has changed the way I think about food and how Anne and I eat. While I won't go into great detail I do want to share some interesting things I learned, and why this book is so important.
I have, for several years now, been trying to eat more healthy. In my various health care related classes I have learned about the evils of saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, and the wonders of fiber and omega 3 polyunsaturated fats. I haven't always done the most stellar job, but I've tried my best. I've done this not because of my weight, but because I care about things like dying of cancer, heart disease or a MI. But these efforts have unfortunately been misguided. While I tried to stay up-to-date on the latest trends in nutritionism, I, like most Americans, have completely missed the point of why many of us are so unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are more health conscious than ever before.
What we're missing is something much bigger than just eating things that have more of this nutrient or less of that, for food is more than the sum of it's parts, and eating is an intricate, relational exercise. A book I read recently explores this idea and it has changed the way I think about food and how Anne and I eat. While I won't go into great detail I do want to share some interesting things I learned, and why this book is so important.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Partisanship Fails Again
I've been trying to digest this whole stimulus mess. I've gone back and forth sometimes believing that the Republicans need to keep the spending on pet Democratic programs in check, and sometimes believing that the Dems just need to go all out, and do their thing. I've been disappointed that Obama has seemed to give up on bi-partisanship, and been annoyed at the fact that the Republicans don't give a crap about bi-partisanship. But as the Senate comes to a deal on this, and as I gorge myself on opinion and analysis on this issue, my thoughts are this: Partisanship fails again.
As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:
"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."
''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."
"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."
"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."
Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.
As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:
"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."
''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."
"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."
"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."
Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)