Response to "Thoughts of Defense of Food."

In this post the author discusses the problems with the western diet, and our addiction to fast food. The idea that without the constant consumption of processed food and weekly dining at restaurants, our country wouldn't be spending millions of dollars taking care of our obese, heart disease stricken society. I agree with the fact that we should "...be eating tasteful things that we like and to enjoy with the people that are closest to us." After all it is during meal time that you recap with the people you love about anything interesting or exciting that has happened earlier in the day. Food is really one thing that everyone can enjoy. "The best food for your health is the most pleasurable food. " said Michael pollen.
He talks about our nations obsession with trying to eat "overly healthy." By taking out the fat and sugar of food you are unable to experience and appreciate how that food is meant to be; in its natural state. My mom always told me to never eat anything that her grandma wouldn't recognize as food. We should all go back to our roots and rediscover how to eat. This idea strongly agrees with that of Michal Pollen. If we began eating only foodstuffs that occur naturally in the world then the diseases of affluence would be non-existent. We are all suffering from our fast paced lifestyles, and the "I want it, and I want it NOW" attitude. Take time, relax, and enjoy that apple picked right from the tree.
I recently listened to a section on All Things Considered titled Rules for Eating. Michal Pollen was featured on it discussing his newest book called "Food Rules." Abiding by his general slogan, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." He highlights a few of his rules stating that you shouldn't eat food that is pretending to be something its not, put candy on its pedestal as a treat, and eat plants (not food made in a plant).

Finally, a positive role model for young women.

Woman's magazines today are filled with page after page of waif-like, malnourished looking, female models. The expectations for young girls today to fit into this unrealistic mold is at its peak. I was nearly about to put down this months latest GLAMOUR magazine when i stumbled across a brilliant ad by Nike. Serena Williams is an outstanding athlete with hundreds of titles to prove it. Unlike many women on the WTA tour, Serena has a beautiful athletic body that she isn't afraid to flaunt. Despite her major melt down displayed at last years US Open, Serena is an excellent role model for all women. She is powerful, confident, and uncaring of what the lastest critique is about her. Nike has always been a adamant supporter of female athletes, so it came to no surprise that they stepped in after statements made by Don Imus regarding the Rutgers woman's basketball team. As a response to these comments Nike launches ads like the one Serena Williams appeared in. "It's important to hear from women who overcome stereotypes, ignorance and inequality," Williams says. It's also important for a woman "to be an athlete, be strong and not feel sorry for kicking someone's butt." One dollar is donated to the Let Me Play Fund, which issues grants for equipment and uniforms. So far the campaign has been successful (first appearing in April 2007). More than $450,000 have been raised in cash and equipment. Nike has continued to launch these advertisements, and continues to be successful.

I later found an article online discussing the debate on paying men and women tennis players the same amount of money for capturing a grand slam title. The fight for respect as female athletes will continue to take place. Although women are physically unable to perform at the same level as men, female athletes are the types of role models that we need.

Response to In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan

The very first line of the books says it all. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." According to Pollan, it's that simple. He starts off beginning his first chapter discussing how supermarkets in the last 25 years haven't really been stocking "food." He explains how much of the "food" purchased isn't actually real food; simply a substitute. Western culture is so focused on what is taken out for your health without being aware of the additives that are put in to replace the natural state of the food. These substitute foods advertise their health benefits to the consumer who then, mistakenly buys them without looking deeper into what these foods actually contain.

I don't feel as though all substitutes are a bad thing though. Every morning i eat egg whites as opposed to the natural state of the egg. Pollan would probably tell me that i am missing out on the vital nutrients found in the yolk of the egg which can only be found in its natural state. But is my substitute for the egg hurting me? The way i look at it i am getting all of the protein without the fat and cholesterol.

Pollan then goes on to define nutritionism, stating that, "foods are essentially a sum of their nutrient parts." Every piece of food that enters the human body is broken down to micro (vitamins and minerals) and macro nutrients (fats, carbs, and proteins). If this were the case, if we simply broke down all foodstuffs into macro and micro nutrients, then the food substitute would look like the healthier option right? But just because it contains the proper amount (x) nutrient compared to the whole food does not make it superior.

Margarine. Michael Pollan has some serious problems with margarine. Margarine was the very first imitation food put on the market in the beginning of the 19th century. The country was up in arms when discovering "the lipid hypothesis." (the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol led to heart disease) Manufactures jumped on the idea to create the better butter, and remove all of the harmful ingredients and substitute them with good ones (polyunsaturated fats and vitamins). Hello trans fat. The harmful effects of trans fat are almost equivalent to those of cholesterol and saturated fat. Although in 1938, the the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act imposed strict labeling of all imitation products, it was later tossed out in 1973; allowing new products to no longer be considered "fakes" if they nutritionally equivalent to the original.

I almost feel bad for the whole foods in the supermarkets. They cannot compete with the low fat, high fiber, no cholesterol tags we see when perusing the isles of the supermarket. Most foods today seem to be enhanced with more vitamins... all the way down to the idea of lean pork. (come on people) Honestly though, who in their right mind is buying Cinnamon Toast Crunch because on the front of the box it states, "More fiber, 35% less sugar." Supermarkets have become a competition of what food has less of the bad and more of the good. Recently though many people have jumped on the bandwagon of buying foods with more antioxidants, such as pomegranates, and of the "better skin, and hair vitamin", also known as omega-3's.Food science is clearly in its golden age.