What's best? low-fat diet? low-carb diet? vegetarian diet? the answer.(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
What's best? low-fat diet? low-carb diet? vegetarian diet? the answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
6 comments
Pollan's latest book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, is worth reading. http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meal...
The overall organization is little forced at times, but the research for each section is really interesting.
The overall organization is little forced at times, but the research for each section is really interesting.
Hunger is not arbitrary. The nervous system tells you what to eat. If you stay with substances that were around during humanity's long evolutionary period, you'll do fine: Meat, vegetables, fruits. If you spend more than 10 minutes worrying over it, you've already lost.
if you spend less than 10 minutes worrying about your diet, you'll end up eating twinkies and mcdonalds most of the time. it's not trivial to find good produce and vegetables in america.
also, one of the article's main points is that meat is not good for you in large quantities, but it's ok in relatively small quantities (much smaller than what the typical American consumes).
Was this a different link earlier? I read this article a while ago (and liked it a lot). But the link I read from this post earlier today was about the coolness of the Atkins diet and was not nearly as good. Whappen?
The Hacker's Diet is an interesting approach to weight loss.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
Looks like a very long article with very little content.
And even less to do with hacking...
i disagree. the interesting points aren't about food -- for example, it's a case study in how a lot of smart people, over a long period of time, can fool themselves -- in fact, the movements to improve software engineering have the same kind of faddishness as nutritionism.
another interesting point was how being "scientific", and looking at individual factors in isolation (e.g. vitamins) missed the forest for the trees, and did more harm than good.
another takeaway was the extent to which "studies" are pushed around/mediated by big political interests, e.g. the meat lobby and the marketing muscle (the suns, microsofts, and Extreme Programming vendors of the food world) that have a big interest in keeping the status quo.
another interesting point was how being "scientific", and looking at individual factors in isolation (e.g. vitamins) missed the forest for the trees, and did more harm than good.
another takeaway was the extent to which "studies" are pushed around/mediated by big political interests, e.g. the meat lobby and the marketing muscle (the suns, microsofts, and Extreme Programming vendors of the food world) that have a big interest in keeping the status quo.
In general, it is not a good idea to start a response with "I disagree". Makes you sound as if you are looking for a fight, when in fact you may have some legit points.
I disagree.
Your body is an intricate piece of technology that you hack on every day, intentionally or not.
And just as the article points out, it gave away its whole article with the words "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."