During my vacation in Vermont I had some time to read Real Food by Nina Planck.
My preconceived concept of this book was that it was basically a rehash of information from a number of other readily available sources. But, since I’m addicted to reading books about food and I was in need of a week’s worth of evening reading material, I grabbed this at the local bookstore.
First let me say that yes, much of the information in this book can be gotten from other sources including Nourishing Traditions, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, The Maker’s Diet, and a few others. However, this book does take a different angle on the information and fills a useful nichĂ© in the genrĂ©.
For instance, The Maker’s Diet takes a bit of a religious slant and appeals to Christians (like myself) in particular, while Nutrition and Physical Degeneration views things from an anthropological angle. Of course since Nutrition and Degeneration is the foundation for the entire genre, we are ensured that all of these books end up with at least some discussion of anthropology. However, Real Food adds a significant amount of relatively recent scientific studies on the affects of various foods in the body. It also adds information from the paleolithic diet crowd based largely on the work of Loren Cordain. My thinking on paleolithic diets is that we don’t have a clue what they really ate and it is all speculative, but this type of research will appeal to those who put great stock in this type of “science.”
Now I happen to be skeptical of many studies on food, because I think the body is a chaotically complex machine that we really don’t have a clue about. So when I read about how triglycerides cause this or that and that the ratio of HDL to LDL is what is important rather than total cholesterol, I pause and say to myself, “self, they got this wrong the first time, what’s to keep them from getting it wrong this time around?” I prefer instead real substantial evidence supplied by hundreds or even thousands of years of experience, i.e. anthropological evidence. When we can find actual real primitive societies alive today (or at least in the 1930s) who are living in extreme health, that interests me. It greatly interests me in finding out what in the world they were doing to be that healthy.
That said, many people thrive on modern scientific studies on foods in the body and will only buy into this way of eating if they are provided with this type of information. It’s all in who you trust. Some people place a good deal of their trust in modern scientists. I may not, but those who do deserve to see the evidence for themselves, and there is indeed a growing pile of evidence for eating this way.
It is also interesting to note that Nina Planck has different priorities than some of the other books. Her focus is on fresh dairy products, pastured meat, sea food, fruit and vegetables. She has a couple chapters on various types of fat and oils and recommends traditional fats like animal fats, coconut oil, olive oil and a very limited amount of vegetable oils such as peanut and sesame oil. She eschews the oils such as soy, corn, safflower and sunflower oils that are so prevalent. She has one chapter where she talks about things such as grains, eggs, salt, soy, and chocolate.
I couldn’t find any recommendations I really disagreed with. It was all good information and built on a wide variety of material. It is an excellent compilation of useful information and research from all angles. It may be just what the doctor ordered for people who think Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and Nourishing Traditions are inadequate.
Real Food is where I got started. I definitely eat better quality foods because I read that book. Also more chocolate!
Thank You
You know, my gut says that she’s right on most of the things in this book, but the science just isn’t there. It may be there eventually, but it’s not there yet. Here’s a well written piece that points out some of the scientific problems with Real Food:
http://www.rootsandgrubs.com/2006/08/18/real-food-fake-science/
Some of her more recent work shows a deeper disconnect with science, such as her article “Vegan Tragedy” that uses the Atlanta vegan couple who neglected their newborn to death as an illustration that “A vegan diet is simply not good enough for babies.” That article has actual factual inaccuracies such as the assertion that cholesterol is “found only in animal foods.”
Josh,
That link you post has some interesting things to say about the scientific method. I think it’s spot on. That’s why Real Food is not my favorite book on this topic, but as I said, will allow people who like modern “science” to be happy about what they are eating.
One thing we all may want to think about is how the scientific method applies to origins science and/or climate change science. By the definitions presented in the said article, neither of these “sciences” fit the definition of science.
One simply cannot perform an experiment to confirm a hypothesis about what happened 1,000,000 years ago. Likewise, one cannot perform an experiment to confirm theories about what the climate will be like in 100 years.