In Gary Taubes’ book “Good Calories Bad Calories?”, and/or if he broadly agrees. Pollan has a considered critique to offer of the science and conclusions Science which contradicts the meat eating logic of our multi-million year evolution, he should lay it out. Pollan would more clearly differentiate between the nutritional aspects of meat consumption and the environmental aspects of the current methods in which it is produced if he knows of any valid nutritional Of his dictum, which may work for younger people with appropriate genes and life histories, but which is equally inappropriate for many other people whose bodies must use primarily fats for energy. But I’m also one of those meat and plant eaters who is frustrated by the “mostly plants” part I’ve read “Omnivore’s Dilemma” and am a huge fan of Michael Pollan. It’s about degree.īut in the whole food discussion, I’ve learned the most from that, that little “ly” and people’s reaction to it. In a way that little word is the most important. With the ‘mostly?’ Why not go all the way?” You can’t please everyone. The meat people are really upset I’m taking a swipe at meat eating, and the vegetarians are saying, “What’s The adverb “mostly” has been the most controversial. Eat food was the main message, but I realized People would rather talk about anything else than quantity.

I’ve learned that from Marion Nestle (the New York University nutrition professor and author), that in theĮnd, so much of the discussion about nutrition is a way to avoid talking about how much people are eating. Sort of take a position on meat and vegetables, and you had to address the whole issue of quantity. I really wanted to say just “Eat food,” but I realized that wasn’t enough. I was trying to simplify everything I learned as radically as possible. I came up with that when I was writing a piece for The New York Times Magazine called “Unhappy Meals,” which became my book. It’s about daily practice more than theory.

It’s a real radical distillation of everything I’ve been working I kept hearing the word pamphlet, and I wanted to write a book that would reach as many people as possible. They understood you don’t need to know all the science Have a pamphlet I could give to patients.” They didn’t have time to give them a big nutrition lecture. What’s the practical import of what you’ve learned? It’s the question I always get when I’m speaking to readers.Īfter I published “In Defense of Food,” a polemic about nutrition science and the food industry and how little we know about nutritional science, I heard from doctors who said, “I would love to At the end of the day people want to know what toĭo with this information. I’ve done it mostly as a reporter with a lot of research and adventures and explorations. I’ve spent 10 years looking at agriculture, food and health.

Michael pollan 10 food rules