Well, I'm breaking my own rules by spending even more time on the food issue, but there is something that is bothering me. While responding to comments on my earlier post, I realized that I may have implied something in my last post that I didn't intend.
A very popular Objectivist blogger, Diana Hsieh, posts a lot about food issues on her blog, and I'm not sure she would call herself a follower of the Paleo diet, but she has certainly referred to it on NoodleFood and her diet is similar. Since we share quite a few readers, I want to state that my earlier post was in no way meant to insult her or her beliefs about food. I do not think she is anti-man. As a matter of fact, her blog is a big part of what has inspired me to look at my diet more carefully, and I think she has done the same for many others. Thank you, Diana!
I don't agree with all of Diana's choices, and she does take much more care about what she eats than I do, but I do not consider her neurotic and I would hate to think that I implied that by not being more specific. As she wrote recently in a post about the same article I referred to, many food choices are good or bad for an individual. I wholeheartedly agree. As I said in my post, most of my convictions are formed from my own personal experience with food and how my own body reacts. I need to put more thought into what I eat than most people do, and apparently, so does Diana. Still, I believe very few foods are "bad" for everyone and that moderation is indeed a good principle as regards food, whereas I think Diana takes a much stricter approach and finds much more of the research to be credible than I do.
Since many of my readers read NoodleFood as well, I just realized that people might have thought I was referring to her, and that it was unfair to be so critical about this issue without mentioning Diana and the overall good influence she has had on me, even if we aren't in agreement on the issue. She certainly knows a lot more than I do about the latest studies in nutrition and she is one of the few writers whom I respect enough to even bother reading a post from about food. Her link to the Gary Taubes article is what really convinced me to work harder to avoid unnecessary carbs. While responding to a comment on my prior post, I realized that my main experience with the Paleo diet came from a doctor I saw who held the position that diet was responsible for all health problems. I did some research through that doctor's resources (and one other person who followed the diet) and I found none of it credible and much of it to be disgusting propaganda. So that's what I was thinking about and referring to when I was writing.
I reject the Paleo diet, as a whole. And to clarify some confusion in the comments: I think the diet is anti-man because, at least from what I've seen, the promoters are against modern foods because they are man-made, and will attach all kinds of other anti-progress, anti-business garbage to the diet. I do not necessarily think that anybody who follows the diet is anti-man, just as I don't think all environmentalists are anti-man, but the idea of environmentalism is. I'll take the parts of the diet that make sense to me based on the knowledge that I have, which includes the knowledge that just about everything we've ever been told by scientists about nutrition has been reversed later.
Yes, the arguments against "processing" and "frankenfoods" are particularly anti-man.
ReplyDeleteAmy,
ReplyDeleteMy initial impression was identical to yours. Phrases like "all natural" and "unprocessed" and references to "diseases of civilization" can all seem like anti-technology environmentalist mumbo-jumbo.
But there is a rational distinction to be made here: if you actually look at the science you will see that is actually HOW modern foods are currently man-made and not THAT they are man-made that is the problem.
As science and technology improve they will eventually discover ways to process foods that will make them far healthier than their "natural" counterparts. Just imagine "the replicator" on Star Trek: The Next Generation. :)
Arthur - So what is the HOW/THAT distinction, in a nutshell? I love your point about technology catching up, but I don't think the die-hards would buy that at all.
ReplyDeleteAmy, I think the disdain for HFCS versus cane sugar would fit what Arthur is alluding to. HFCS, in case you're not familiar, is used in everything because the government has interfered in the agricultural market to such an extent that there is a glut of corn and sugar is comparatively too expensive in products with slim margins. I think the attacks on HFCS are hyperbolic in general, but it objectively is more difficult for the body to process. IANAN, though.
ReplyDeleteBill, I still don't see that as a particular HOW. Is cane sugar considered a "processed" food, but in a diffferent way than HFCS? At what point is something "processed?" I wasn't being facetious when I asked in an earlier comment whether or not ground turkey is considered a "whole" food.
ReplyDeleteI agree that avoidance of processed foods can seem to be anti-technology. That was my reaction at first, and may in fact be some people's viewpoint. Of course I doubt that's the case with Objectivists.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not going to change my diet drastically based on a few independent blogs. My life is at stake! However, I've come to respect Diana's judgment enough that if she makes claims, I know it warrants serious consideration and further study.
I am skeptical of some specific paleo diet claims, but the general thesis makes sense, and from a wider perspective, paleo represents a reality-oriented approach to diet, i.e. looking at the world and humans over time and what our real physical requirements and capabilities are.
Regarding processed foods, humans are not infallible, and therefore a manmade food is not necessarily a good food. However, any problems with such foods are not due to processing per se, but must be judged by the resulting product. Some results may be good, others not.
The main problem seems to be that many processed foods strip out valuable nutrients, or result in substances that are bad for other reasons (i.e. are high in sugar or carbs, which needlessly increase blood sugar). Many whole foods (i.e. real meat, fresh veggies, etc.) avoid these problems.
I see what you're driving at, Amy. I think "processed" is a package-deal. In the mass production of food, there are often rational reasons to inject fillers, preservatives, and other chemicals that weren't originally in the food: transportation needs, spoilage prevention, marketing purposes, taste heightening, and so on. Most of these additions are neutral or benevolent, but some could be harmful (though perhaps not in the current context of knowledge).
ReplyDeleteI think the "processed" knock unites these two types of additives and smears with a broad brush. Couple that with widespread scientific ignorance and you get people who will deplore Splenda because it contains chlorine.
Jeff, I like your clear statement, and I'm going to close out the comments on my food posts now on that note since I am really tired of talking about food. Last night I spent so much time on this issue we ended up eating an MSG-laden noodle dish, which was great to have on-hand, but not what I would prefer to eat on a regular basis. Back to cooking and eating for me!
ReplyDeleteOh, and Bill and I crossed lines, so NOW the comments are closed. Thanks for all of your thoughts!
ReplyDelete