Comments on: Michael Pollan vs. Processed Food http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:13:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Shawn http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-948 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:04:14 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-948 I'd like to point out that your example of fortifying flour (white flour, actually) is not really that great, since in this case they are simply adding back some (but not all) of the nutrients that were destroyed in processing. Whole wheat flour does not have to be fortified because it has those nutrients to begin with -- which actually supports Pollan's arguments against food processing. I’d like to point out that your example of fortifying flour (white flour, actually) is not really that great, since in this case they are simply adding back some (but not all) of the nutrients that were destroyed in processing. Whole wheat flour does not have to be fortified because it has those nutrients to begin with — which actually supports Pollan’s arguments against food processing.

]]> by: Sam penrose http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-745 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:25:57 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-745 On caloric restrictions, with particular relevance to your research on smellable calories: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/2/1/6857 On caloric restrictions, with particular relevance to your research on smellable calories:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/2/1/6857

]]> by: Sam Penrose http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-744 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:24:26 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-744 I think you and Pollan are talking past each other. Pollans is generalizing about the American diet as a whole: McDonalds and Coke and General Mills' breakfast products. I don't believe he has a problem with pasteurized milk or iodized salt. I think you and Pollan are talking past each other. Pollans is generalizing about the American diet as a whole: McDonalds and Coke and General Mills’ breakfast products. I don’t believe he has a problem with pasteurized milk or iodized salt.

]]> by: Katlen http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-736 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:25:07 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-736 I am very frustrated with the "eat less" mantra. I eat 800-1200 calories a day and in two weeks I haven't moved off my set point. My size makes doctors think I eat a lot more than I do. Since in a previous attempt to "eat less" I've already ended up in the emergency room from not eating, I am well aware of the dangers of not eating enough. So when I hear "eat less," I want to scream! I am very frustrated with the “eat less” mantra. I eat 800-1200 calories a day and in two weeks I haven’t moved off my set point. My size makes doctors think I eat a lot more than I do. Since in a previous attempt to “eat less” I’ve already ended up in the emergency room from not eating, I am well aware of the dangers of not eating enough. So when I hear “eat less,” I want to scream!

]]> by: Tim Lundeen http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-731 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:58:54 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-731 The "eat less" recommendation seems consistent with what we are learning about calorie restriction and life expectancy, and that higher metabolic activity from more food are coorelated with a lot of different health risks. I agree that it was not well presented :-) The “eat less” recommendation seems consistent with what we are learning about calorie restriction and life expectancy, and that higher metabolic activity from more food are coorelated with a lot of different health risks. I agree that it was not well presented :-)

]]> by: Scott http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-719 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:06:03 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-719 I agree with most of Pollan's points. Yes, the science of nutrition is certainly useful in many ways, but at the same time many of us do seem to be over-obsessed with nutritional details. Adding specific nutrients back into foods that are crappy for us to begin is a step in the right direction, but why not just eat the foods that naturally come with these nutrients to begin with? I agree with most of Pollan’s points. Yes, the science of nutrition is certainly useful in many ways, but at the same time many of us do seem to be over-obsessed with nutritional details. Adding specific nutrients back into foods that are crappy for us to begin is a step in the right direction, but why not just eat the foods that naturally come with these nutrients to begin with?

]]> by: Blair http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-718 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:03:08 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/01/31/michael-pollan-vs-processed-food/#comment-718 I understand what you're saying, but many additives that are in processed foods can cause cancer. I understand what you’re saying, but many additives that are in processed foods can cause cancer.

]]>