Re: WAPF doesn't like plants?

March 25, 2009

Pollan is dead right on many issues and is a fantastic writer. But not only does

he misstate the basic tenets of the WAPF (of course we like plants, just take a

quick look through " Nourishing Traditions " !), but it's clear that his popularity

has gone to his head. The fact that he denies that there is any dilemma shows

that he has decided that he is right and that's that; he is no longer open to

evidence and fact. And his portrayal of himself as the wise mediator, trying to

enlighten all sides with his cute mantra, is disgusting.

Tom

MJ: When you first wrote the mantra " Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants, " did

you have any idea what kind of reaction you'd get?

MP: ...the more you looked, the more you realized that the shortage of plants in

our diet could explain a lot. Not that I'm against meat eating. I think we're

eating too much. That's why I said " mostly plants. "

MJ: Did you hear from the beef lobby?

MP: No, but there's another group, the Weston A. Price Foundation, who are

fierce in their love of animal fat. And a lot of what they say is right, but

they really don't like plants. People feel like they have to take sides on this

plant/animal divide, and I don't think we do.

MJ: There's no dilemma?

MP: [Laughs.] No dilemma. And of course a lot of vegetarians were annoyed that I

wasn't saying " all plants. " It's a thicket. People have strong, quasi-religious

views. Secularizing the issue is challenging.

March 25, 2009

You can see this among some followers of WAPF, such as this blogger

(http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2008/11/first-supper.html)

who advocates (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) a FUMP principle:

----------Quoting the blog:

Before hinting at the meaning of the acronym, FUMP, let me first qualify what

I'm about to say…

I have tremendous admiration for what some people have done. In fact, one man in

particular has done more to progress the real food movement in the last couple

of years than any other scholar, even getting the attention of our next

president with his recent New York Times article. For that I commend him.

But it's also very important to cajole those that you admire the most in and

around your field. So here comes a fair criticism.

The MP in FUMP represents Pollan, who, in his most recent bestselling

book has made the broad-sweeping statement on the cover, simply put, that

virtually all of mainstream medicine and nutrition would nod a dense head to,

that we should all…

" Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. "

Been there, done that, failed miserably – and I'm not alone. Doing so made me

ravenously hungry, nuked my digestion, made me an emotional basketcase, and

helped me achieve the chiseled look of a marshmallow. It did help me sneeze and

wheeze a lot to accompany my intense gas and physical pain. I'll give it that.

Anyway, I'll let you use your imagination as to what the letters that precede MP

represent. Suffice it to say that the mantra here, if there is one, is…

" Eat food. As much as you want. Mostly animals. "

_______________________________END QUOTE

Me again:

I like to eat lots of vegetables and don't really know what I would eat if I

couldn't. I eat lots of meat and dairy, but that is not enough for me to make a

meal. Still, I never could quite figure out Pollan's slogan, especially since it

was Pollan's _Omnivore's Dilemma_ that converted me from veganism and led me to

WAPF. While eating lots of plants is good, I would say the slogan about _mostly_

plants is a bad idea since practically that would mean lots of carbs. I think he

does it to make nice with the vegetarians in the larger food movement and so

should be understood as a political slogan.

I also am unsure about the " Not too much " part of the slogan. If Taubes is right

that obesity is not caused by overeating and inactivity, but that inactivity and

overeating is caused by obesity (i..e. carb-driven disregulation of metabolism),

then encouraging people to limit their appetite, especially when they finally

begin eating mostly animal protein and fats, may be counterproductive. I was

struck by the bit in his _In Defense of Food_ about the external cues that

encourage overeating (Big plates, cultural customs to clean your plate,

distractions while eating, etc.). Still, limitation of calories might not be the

most important thing if more calories leads you to more activity and shifts your

metabolism. It might not be that exercise sheds the pounds, but that eating more

healthy food gets you moving and then you go exercise. So those who want to lose

weight would nip this in the bud by cutting calories, causing their body to cut

energy for motion and make you hungry. Then you are sitting there starving and

miserable at the gym. Or more likely, sitting on the couch eating chips while

kicking yourself for not going...

Bill

>

> Has anyone read Pollan's interview in Mother ?

> http://tinyurl.com/b88ztz

>

> " No, but there's another group, the Weston A Price Foundation who are

> fierce

> in their love of animal fat. And a lot of what they say is right, but

> they

> really don't like plants. People feel like they have to take sides on

> this

> plant/animal divide, and I don't think we do. "

>

> See the comments section.

>

> Carolyn

> Madison, WI

>

March 25, 2009

Bill,

I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree that Matt of 180 Degree

Health could be construed as a voice for the WAPF. He knows all about Price and

WAPF and they have likely influenced his nutritional ideas, but he does not

represent the WAPF. Also, his FUMP experiment last December (which I highly

recommend reading; he posted an entry a day with his food intake, observations,

and thoughts, and it's highly entertaining!) was just that: an experiment. He

does not think that an all-animal diet is ideal, in fact he emphatically states

otherwise. He concludes that such a diet can heal the body of digestive issues

but thinks that it probably should not be followed long-term. There are of

course plenty of zero-carbers who would disagree with that, but going back to

first principles we should ask, what did traditional societies eat? None of them

ate zero-carb, animal food only, although the Inuit and warrior-subgroup of the

Masai ate quite low-carb diets.

Tom

March 25, 2009

> Still, limitation of calories might not be the most important thing > if more

calories leads you to more activity and shifts your

> metabolism. It might not be that exercise sheds the pounds,

> but that eating more healthy food gets you moving and then

> you go exercise.

I read Taubes that way too, Bill, and the successful diet writers seem to bear

that out. The ones that say eat so you're not hungry. And JK, my personal main

guy, likes overfeeding at first if you can to switch to fat-burning.

I don't like plants much - I'm a supertaster and I can really taste those bitter

phytochemicals. This is just a personal reason why I resonate with JK, who says

plant matter is mostly animal fodder but recognizes that some people like some

of it.

I also got a kick out of an audio interval with Jay Wortman who was quoting an

Inuit woman in her first visit to a seafood place: " why are those people eating

plants? " my kinda girl.

But I sure would not voice that I don't like veggies much outside the family.

It's like saying you don't like puppies.

Connie

March 26, 2009

MP clearly doesn't know very much about WAPF or he never would say that we don't

like plants. NT is full of plant based recipes.

Tom--have you read " The Fat of the Land " ? There are many peoples that eat

virtually nothing but meat, provided it's available. I think that hunters have a

hard time providing a steady supply of meat. In fact it seems pretty obvious

that herding would be developed as a method of ensuring a stable supply of meat.

Cheers,

>

> Bill,

>

> I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree that Matt of 180 Degree