What do you think?
Rate this book
Real Food: What to Eat and Why
Yes, Virginia, you can butter your carrots. The country's leading expert on farmers' markets and traditional foods tells the truth about the foods your grandmother praised but doctors call dangerous.
Everyone loves real food, but they're afraid bacon and eggs will give them a heart attack--thus the culinary abomination known as the egg-white omelet. But it turns out that tossing out the yolk isn't smart. Real Food reveals why traditional foods are not only delicious--everyone knows that butter tastes better--but are actually good for you, making the nutritional case for egg, cream, butter, grass-fed beef, roast chicken with the skin, lard, cocoa butter, and more.
In lively, personal chapters on produce, dairy, meat, fish, Nina explains how the foods we've eaten for thousands of years--pork, lamb, raw milk cheese, sea salt--have been falsely accused. Industrial foods like corn syrup, which lurks everywhere from fruit juice to chicken broth, are to blame for the triple epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, not real food.
Nina Planck grew up on a vegetable farm in Virginia and learned to eat right from her no-nonsense parents: along with lots of local fruits and vegetables, the Plancks drank raw milk and ate meatloaf, bacon, and eggs with impunity. But the nutritional trends ran the other way--fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were taboo--and in her teens and twenties, Nina tried vegan, vegetarian, low-fat, and low-cholesterol diets, with unhappy results.
When she opened the first farmers' markets in London, Nina began to eat real food again--for pleasure, not health--and to her surprise she lost weight and felt great. She began to wonder about the farmhouse diet back home. Was it deadly, as the cardiologists say? Happily for people who love food, the answer is no.
Real Food upends the conventional wisdom on diet and health. Prepare for pleasant surprises on whipped cream and other delights. The days of deprivation are over.
(from the flap)
Everyone loves real food, but they're afraid bacon and eggs will give them a heart attack--thus the culinary abomination known as the egg-white omelet. But it turns out that tossing out the yolk isn't smart. Real Food reveals why traditional foods are not only delicious--everyone knows that butter tastes better--but are actually good for you, making the nutritional case for egg, cream, butter, grass-fed beef, roast chicken with the skin, lard, cocoa butter, and more.
In lively, personal chapters on produce, dairy, meat, fish, Nina explains how the foods we've eaten for thousands of years--pork, lamb, raw milk cheese, sea salt--have been falsely accused. Industrial foods like corn syrup, which lurks everywhere from fruit juice to chicken broth, are to blame for the triple epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, not real food.
Nina Planck grew up on a vegetable farm in Virginia and learned to eat right from her no-nonsense parents: along with lots of local fruits and vegetables, the Plancks drank raw milk and ate meatloaf, bacon, and eggs with impunity. But the nutritional trends ran the other way--fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were taboo--and in her teens and twenties, Nina tried vegan, vegetarian, low-fat, and low-cholesterol diets, with unhappy results.
When she opened the first farmers' markets in London, Nina began to eat real food again--for pleasure, not health--and to her surprise she lost weight and felt great. She began to wonder about the farmhouse diet back home. Was it deadly, as the cardiologists say? Happily for people who love food, the answer is no.
Real Food upends the conventional wisdom on diet and health. Prepare for pleasant surprises on whipped cream and other delights. The days of deprivation are over.
(from the flap)
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
189 people are currently reading
7655 people want to read
About the author
Nina Planck
9 books24 followersNina Planck, author of Real Food and the Farmer's Market Cookbook, is an expert on local and traditional food. In 1999, she created the first farmers' markets in London, England. In New York City, she ran the legendary Greenmarkets. Nina lives in Greenwich Village with cheesemonger Rob Kaufelt and their son, Julian."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 467 reviews
January 10, 2008
I teetered between shock and skepticism for the entire 275 pages of this book, and at the end of it all, I've been persuaded. I now stock my fridge with whole milk, and whole-milk yogurt, I threw out my beloved Brummel and Brown, and I bought pancetta at the grocery store yesterday - all because of Nina Planck's book. The basic premise of Real Food is that industrial foods (essentially all processed and factory-farmed foods) are what cause heart disease, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol and the zillion other maladies that are popping off lazy Americans one fat ass at a time. Planck goes to bat for fat (hell yes! that was on purpose) and for sensible ways of farming, including grass-fed, free-range, organic, (and probably Zen) cows, pigs, chickens/eggs, fish and produce.
Planck also does right by a whole lotta disenfranchized researchers, who have apparently been doing studies for decades that show that there is no correlation between dietary fat intake ("real" fat of course - not trans fats or processed fats) and heart disease. For those of us who have heard nothing our entire lives except that saturated fat sits at the right hand of Satan, this kind of information is positively jaw-dropping. It also, incidentally, appeals to the part of me that loves conspiracy theories. "But Diane. How can the American public be so mislead about saturated fat and cholesterol?" you ask, with one eye-brow cocked. Well, cholesterol-lowering statins are the best-selling prescription drug in America ($16 billion a year in sales) and Pfizer spends $60 million each year on marketing Lipitor to the American public. Getting suspicious?
[Sidebar: And let's all hope that the $60 million Pfizer spent on marketing didn't go directly to Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart. 1. That guy looks like a fucking walking corpse - decidedly NOT someone I would put in MY Lipitor commercial, and 2. If you're in the "artificial hearts" business, don't tell me for one second that you're not hoping I have a massive coronary any day now]
Planck's Real Food falls a bit short as far as the structure goes - it seems like she wrote separate chapters and then flipped a coin to see where she should put them, which is mildly annoying. But her writing style is straightforward, and she's kind of cheeky ("No doubt, for some people, cracking open an egg is one chore too many..."). She also provides a sizeable list of real food resources, end notes, and a bibliography.
So. Hurry up and read this book so that we can talk about it over eggs and bacon and whole milk, with a side of butter, and you won't think I'm insane.
Planck also does right by a whole lotta disenfranchized researchers, who have apparently been doing studies for decades that show that there is no correlation between dietary fat intake ("real" fat of course - not trans fats or processed fats) and heart disease. For those of us who have heard nothing our entire lives except that saturated fat sits at the right hand of Satan, this kind of information is positively jaw-dropping. It also, incidentally, appeals to the part of me that loves conspiracy theories. "But Diane. How can the American public be so mislead about saturated fat and cholesterol?" you ask, with one eye-brow cocked. Well, cholesterol-lowering statins are the best-selling prescription drug in America ($16 billion a year in sales) and Pfizer spends $60 million each year on marketing Lipitor to the American public. Getting suspicious?
[Sidebar: And let's all hope that the $60 million Pfizer spent on marketing didn't go directly to Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart. 1. That guy looks like a fucking walking corpse - decidedly NOT someone I would put in MY Lipitor commercial, and 2. If you're in the "artificial hearts" business, don't tell me for one second that you're not hoping I have a massive coronary any day now]
Planck's Real Food falls a bit short as far as the structure goes - it seems like she wrote separate chapters and then flipped a coin to see where she should put them, which is mildly annoying. But her writing style is straightforward, and she's kind of cheeky ("No doubt, for some people, cracking open an egg is one chore too many..."). She also provides a sizeable list of real food resources, end notes, and a bibliography.
So. Hurry up and read this book so that we can talk about it over eggs and bacon and whole milk, with a side of butter, and you won't think I'm insane.
August 26, 2007
I have to admit that I was a pretty skeptical audience. I read this book because I have visted the Plancks' farm and I was curious about what their daughter had to say about food.
I'm a little torn in my opinion--she makes some really good points, but others didn't seem so well considered. The central idea of the book is that humans have been eating animal fats (meat, lard, eggs, dairy) thousands and thousands of years, so we should be eating them rather than industrial imitations created in the last 100 years. I can agree with that basic idea...but Planck never adresses the fact that, while we no long eat like we once we did, we no longer live like we did for thousands and thousands of years either. We have a much more sedentary lifestyle today--and when you're writing a book in defense of fats, I think that it's pretty important to adress that.
In the end, fine, I learned a lot and I might even try a glass of whole milk--but the writing was an frustrating mix of nutritional/scientific jargon and first person narrative. I really really hated her dismissive tone when discussing vegetarianism and veganism, and she rarely acknowledged that for many people tracking down and buying whole natural "real" foods is next to impossible. Nina Planck, I am glad that you can afford whole milk from a grass fed jersey cow to enjoy with your fresh local blackberries blueberries and gooseberries. But many of us can't.
I'm a little torn in my opinion--she makes some really good points, but others didn't seem so well considered. The central idea of the book is that humans have been eating animal fats (meat, lard, eggs, dairy) thousands and thousands of years, so we should be eating them rather than industrial imitations created in the last 100 years. I can agree with that basic idea...but Planck never adresses the fact that, while we no long eat like we once we did, we no longer live like we did for thousands and thousands of years either. We have a much more sedentary lifestyle today--and when you're writing a book in defense of fats, I think that it's pretty important to adress that.
In the end, fine, I learned a lot and I might even try a glass of whole milk--but the writing was an frustrating mix of nutritional/scientific jargon and first person narrative. I really really hated her dismissive tone when discussing vegetarianism and veganism, and she rarely acknowledged that for many people tracking down and buying whole natural "real" foods is next to impossible. Nina Planck, I am glad that you can afford whole milk from a grass fed jersey cow to enjoy with your fresh local blackberries blueberries and gooseberries. But many of us can't.
Read
June 27, 2008I didn't finish this. Here's her thing: the healthy way to eat is to eat what our grandparents did. If you had grandparents who lived on a farm, I guess. I mean, my grandparents ate Spam and those little vienna sausages that come out of a can with a disgusting slurping sound. What she means is 'natural' beef, eggs, cheese, oil, butter, whole milk, lots of fruits and vegetables. All food that she calls 'real.' At first, I was into it. She had been a vegetarian and a vegan and all of that. Then she started eating 'real food' and felt great. Here's the thing about these books: whether the author is advocating that you eat 'real food' or vegan food or Atkins food (I'm guessing. I've never read anything about the Atkins diet), the writer always says, I started eating this way and I felt great! Could it be that they were missing something in their former diet?
I just don't know about all of this. I am intrigued by "here's what you should eat" books, but they are all contradictory. This woman has research, the China Study has research. Everyone is saying 'eat this and you won't get cancer.' And 'everyone who eats this other way gets cancer.'
What do you think, Will Deaton? Read this book and tell me what you think, hippie.
I just don't know about all of this. I am intrigued by "here's what you should eat" books, but they are all contradictory. This woman has research, the China Study has research. Everyone is saying 'eat this and you won't get cancer.' And 'everyone who eats this other way gets cancer.'
What do you think, Will Deaton? Read this book and tell me what you think, hippie.
January 11, 2008
I recently got into a very interesting conversation with one of my smarter (wink) friends about what humans eat and she brought up a great point, essentially, the heart of this dilemma: she said, "humans have no idea what to eat, I mean, look at us!" And my friend is exactly right, we are a species that doesn't know when to say when and we readily accept "industrial food" in place of "real food," and Planck successfully conveys this fact. This book made so much sense it was frustrating. Nina Planck manages to tell the reader what the reader already knows, that real food ( fresh meat and veggies, whole milk and unpasteurized cheese - the foods humans have been eating until very recently) has countless benefits. Whereas, industrial food containing preservatives and chemical compounds have the ability to make us weak and sick. Planck lends her powerful argument to the discourse on human diet and her point of view is a very important one.
February 28, 2011
Lately, I have been in the habit of reading books that pair together - either by the same author or books that seem to treat the same topic. The two most recent books -- on the heels of the two Michael Pollan books I finished a few weeks ago, are "The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved" by Sandor Katz, the author of "Wild Fermentation" and "Real Food: What to Eat & Why" by Nina Planck. Since the Planck book is the least useful and most controversial, I'll start there - hoping to make this quick and painless.
"Real Food: What to Eat & Why" by Nina Planck has a beguiling cover that seems to offer promises of quality guidelines and content. While Planck writes with great passion in an accessible, chatty style, I found much of her book to be pompous, arrogant and repetitive. Although she does use footnotes in the first part of the book and lists a bibliography, her academic rigor is not nearly on the same level as "Omnivore's Dilemma."
In fact, there were several long sections that seem to be lifted right from Michael Pollan's book -- making "Real Food" seem more to me like a "Cliff Notes" version of "Omnivore's Dilemma" but tainted with a very subjected, personal angle that implies there is only one "right" diet and everyone else is an idiot. While Planck and Pollan are both journalists and food writers, it is clear that Planck's skill is not in writing -- her book seems like a very long blog article or diatribe. She relies heavily on secondary and tertiary sources, fails to properly substantiate many of her arguments except by anecdote -- you can hardly tear down the China Study, for example, by your own personal experience.
She also seems to be taking format cues from Sandor Katz's "The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved" -- both in terms of the structure of her book and the individual chapters. Her weak attempts at describing food preparation and providing resources don't hold water next to Katz's superior book which describes the experiences and experiments of him and his friends and is very strongly supportive of readers exploring and finding what works best for them.
Reading the reviews for Planck's book on Amazon and other places on the internet was highly entertaining -- she has a very vocal following who will defend to the death her assertions -- afterall, Planck's book validates their current diets making very few recommendations aside from staying away from packaged, processed food. It's still basically the Standard American Diet - lots of animal products, eat as much as you want. The redeeming factor is that she encourages people to strongly consider the source of their foods -- staying away from big corporate farm produced foods.
Her argument boils down to something pulled right from Pollan's writings: anything your grandmother made is 'real food. However, that was what Pollan offered as a guideline for selecting better prepared foods -- not as a pretext to eat whatever the hell you want. Planck maintains that you should eat as much as you want of anything that's not packaged or processed crap -- somehow, your body will know when to stop because those foods are more satisfying. This leaves out the obvious -- calories are calories and must be burned. People eat for many reasons -- hunger, boredom, happiness, sadness -- and satiety isn't always a cue for ending a meal.
Planck is vehemently (and obnoxiously) anti vegetarian, particularly anti-vegan, and there is not a lot of material provided to encourage independent, critical thought or to make space for other people's experiences or conclusions. She puts little value on moderation or exercise, and doesn't allow for differences in individual body chemistry.
Pollan, on the other hand, goes to Polyface farm and works on the farm, he goes hunting, he goes foraging -- he talks to real people, he dives in and describes his experiences. All Planck does is to read Pollan and a few other books and write an over-long newspaper column that incorporates some of their key ideas with her own strong opinions. Her shameless theft of concepts from Pollan's books -- twisted to her own means -- lead me to make only one recommendation: Read Omnivore's Dilemma. It's a far superior book when compared to Planck's book or any others on the shelf.
"Real Food: What to Eat & Why" by Nina Planck has a beguiling cover that seems to offer promises of quality guidelines and content. While Planck writes with great passion in an accessible, chatty style, I found much of her book to be pompous, arrogant and repetitive. Although she does use footnotes in the first part of the book and lists a bibliography, her academic rigor is not nearly on the same level as "Omnivore's Dilemma."
In fact, there were several long sections that seem to be lifted right from Michael Pollan's book -- making "Real Food" seem more to me like a "Cliff Notes" version of "Omnivore's Dilemma" but tainted with a very subjected, personal angle that implies there is only one "right" diet and everyone else is an idiot. While Planck and Pollan are both journalists and food writers, it is clear that Planck's skill is not in writing -- her book seems like a very long blog article or diatribe. She relies heavily on secondary and tertiary sources, fails to properly substantiate many of her arguments except by anecdote -- you can hardly tear down the China Study, for example, by your own personal experience.
She also seems to be taking format cues from Sandor Katz's "The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved" -- both in terms of the structure of her book and the individual chapters. Her weak attempts at describing food preparation and providing resources don't hold water next to Katz's superior book which describes the experiences and experiments of him and his friends and is very strongly supportive of readers exploring and finding what works best for them.
Reading the reviews for Planck's book on Amazon and other places on the internet was highly entertaining -- she has a very vocal following who will defend to the death her assertions -- afterall, Planck's book validates their current diets making very few recommendations aside from staying away from packaged, processed food. It's still basically the Standard American Diet - lots of animal products, eat as much as you want. The redeeming factor is that she encourages people to strongly consider the source of their foods -- staying away from big corporate farm produced foods.
Her argument boils down to something pulled right from Pollan's writings: anything your grandmother made is 'real food. However, that was what Pollan offered as a guideline for selecting better prepared foods -- not as a pretext to eat whatever the hell you want. Planck maintains that you should eat as much as you want of anything that's not packaged or processed crap -- somehow, your body will know when to stop because those foods are more satisfying. This leaves out the obvious -- calories are calories and must be burned. People eat for many reasons -- hunger, boredom, happiness, sadness -- and satiety isn't always a cue for ending a meal.
Planck is vehemently (and obnoxiously) anti vegetarian, particularly anti-vegan, and there is not a lot of material provided to encourage independent, critical thought or to make space for other people's experiences or conclusions. She puts little value on moderation or exercise, and doesn't allow for differences in individual body chemistry.
Pollan, on the other hand, goes to Polyface farm and works on the farm, he goes hunting, he goes foraging -- he talks to real people, he dives in and describes his experiences. All Planck does is to read Pollan and a few other books and write an over-long newspaper column that incorporates some of their key ideas with her own strong opinions. Her shameless theft of concepts from Pollan's books -- twisted to her own means -- lead me to make only one recommendation: Read Omnivore's Dilemma. It's a far superior book when compared to Planck's book or any others on the shelf.
June 15, 2008
This book changed the way I look at food and affirmed something I have felt instinctively for a long time: real foods are the best foods.
I was worried I wouldn't like this book because I am a vegetarian and had heard it was very anti-vegetarian and vegan. I will say this book is staunchly anti-vegan, but us veggies have nothing to fear (but the book did influence my decision to eat fish again, so now I'm just avoiding poultry and beef).
The emphasis on eating foods that are real (i.e., traditional, i.e., anything our grandparents would recognize as food) is a strong one - Nina has a lot of data and scientific evidence to back up her claims.
I read this book in February, about 6 weeks after giving birth; I had been eating a lot of real, wholesome foods throughout my pregnancy because, duh, that's important. But this book really made me want to take things to the next level, especially with the butter versus margarine debate. I eat whatever I want - including dishes like fettucine alfredo and goods from my local bakery - and guess what? 6 months post-partum, I weight 6 pounds less than my pre-pregnancy weight and am 1 size smaller. I realize the nursing has something to do with this, but I think my return to real foods played an important role, too.
I was worried I wouldn't like this book because I am a vegetarian and had heard it was very anti-vegetarian and vegan. I will say this book is staunchly anti-vegan, but us veggies have nothing to fear (but the book did influence my decision to eat fish again, so now I'm just avoiding poultry and beef).
The emphasis on eating foods that are real (i.e., traditional, i.e., anything our grandparents would recognize as food) is a strong one - Nina has a lot of data and scientific evidence to back up her claims.
I read this book in February, about 6 weeks after giving birth; I had been eating a lot of real, wholesome foods throughout my pregnancy because, duh, that's important. But this book really made me want to take things to the next level, especially with the butter versus margarine debate. I eat whatever I want - including dishes like fettucine alfredo and goods from my local bakery - and guess what? 6 months post-partum, I weight 6 pounds less than my pre-pregnancy weight and am 1 size smaller. I realize the nursing has something to do with this, but I think my return to real foods played an important role, too.
October 9, 2010
Real food is better for you than industrial food. Old, traditional fats like butter, lard, and coconut oil aren't to blame for heart disease, obesity and all the other Western diseases that plague us; new, plant-based fats like canola oil and safflower oil are suspect. Whole milk is good for you; skim milk is not. Etc.
I went back and forth on 2 or 3 stars for this, and settled on 3 only because 2.5 isn't an option. While I agree with Planck's premise that we're demonizing the wrong foods and need to go back to eating real food, I found the book's overall smug and sometimes preachy tone off-putting, sometimes in the extreme. And while Planck is long on dietary recommendations, she comes up short with a way to implement those recommendations. How do we make real food accessible to people who can't afford shares in a CSA, don't have proximity to a famers market, and/or don't have the time to cook from scratch? Planck doesn't seem to be concerned with that.
As I read, I kept comparing this to Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. If I hadn't read those books first, I might have enjoyed Real Food more. But because I had, I found this lacking.
I went back and forth on 2 or 3 stars for this, and settled on 3 only because 2.5 isn't an option. While I agree with Planck's premise that we're demonizing the wrong foods and need to go back to eating real food, I found the book's overall smug and sometimes preachy tone off-putting, sometimes in the extreme. And while Planck is long on dietary recommendations, she comes up short with a way to implement those recommendations. How do we make real food accessible to people who can't afford shares in a CSA, don't have proximity to a famers market, and/or don't have the time to cook from scratch? Planck doesn't seem to be concerned with that.
As I read, I kept comparing this to Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. If I hadn't read those books first, I might have enjoyed Real Food more. But because I had, I found this lacking.
January 22, 2010
I don't understand why "real food" must be so joyless, and preachy. The author grew up on what she considers a perfect family farm, strayed from her roots as a young adult, and has since returned to her family's traditional ways--just like the parable of the prodigal son.
If you want to read yet another self-righteous rant about how terrible the American food industry is, you'll find a friend in Planck's book. However, if you want to read an actual handbook on "real food," I recommend Nigella Lawson's How to Eat: The Pleasures and Principles of Good Food. Nigella eats a lot of the same things Nina Planck promotes, but she does so with complete joy, and zero preaching.
If you want to read yet another self-righteous rant about how terrible the American food industry is, you'll find a friend in Planck's book. However, if you want to read an actual handbook on "real food," I recommend Nigella Lawson's How to Eat: The Pleasures and Principles of Good Food. Nigella eats a lot of the same things Nina Planck promotes, but she does so with complete joy, and zero preaching.
December 7, 2010
I have mixed feelings about this book. Planck says she set out to find out more about the science of "real food," and in many instances she does. There was valuable information in this book about nutrition and diets (in the sense of the whole of what one eats, rather than a diet plan). However, I felt the author undermined herself in a number of ways, and I ended up doubting some of the claims she makes. Some examples include:
- Planck frequently uses anecdotes in place of data (for examples, see the section on cherries on p 140 or butter on p 110).
- She makes claims not backed by medical organizations. On page 110, she also claims saturated fats "boost" your immune system, despite the fact that medical science seems to agree that immune systems cannot be boosted (see the Harvard Medical School pamphlet, "The Truth About Your Immune System", or Skeptoid episode 227, for more information).
- She references scientific studies, of course, but also the authors of special interest cookbooks - which is not to say that special interest cookbooks don't fill a valuable place in the lives of people with medical or religious dietary restrictions, or who just love chocolate; however, the authors of these cookbooks have a vested interest in asserting that their specially formatted diet is the best.
- She occasionally fails to footnote or provide statistics for some pretty radical claims she makes, such as p 150, where she provides a statistic-less and unsupported claim of high levels of birth defects and cancer in farmers and their children.
I don't think there's anything in this book you can't get from a better-written and -researched source. If you're interested in food politics, try Michael Pollan. If you're interested in food science, try Harold McGee. If you're interested in shopping guides, try Marion Nestle.
- Planck frequently uses anecdotes in place of data (for examples, see the section on cherries on p 140 or butter on p 110).
- She makes claims not backed by medical organizations. On page 110, she also claims saturated fats "boost" your immune system, despite the fact that medical science seems to agree that immune systems cannot be boosted (see the Harvard Medical School pamphlet, "The Truth About Your Immune System", or Skeptoid episode 227, for more information).
- She references scientific studies, of course, but also the authors of special interest cookbooks - which is not to say that special interest cookbooks don't fill a valuable place in the lives of people with medical or religious dietary restrictions, or who just love chocolate; however, the authors of these cookbooks have a vested interest in asserting that their specially formatted diet is the best.
- She occasionally fails to footnote or provide statistics for some pretty radical claims she makes, such as p 150, where she provides a statistic-less and unsupported claim of high levels of birth defects and cancer in farmers and their children.
I don't think there's anything in this book you can't get from a better-written and -researched source. If you're interested in food politics, try Michael Pollan. If you're interested in food science, try Harold McGee. If you're interested in shopping guides, try Marion Nestle.
May 9, 2024
I definitely liked the overall premise of this book. The constant evolutionary references and the preachy tone were a bit off-putting. I eat very healthy, make almost everything from scratch, and buy the best I can find or afford, but a lot of this book made me feel somewhat discouraged that it's not good enough. I liked Michael Pollan's, In Defense of Food, much better.
May 15, 2015
i am trying to be more liberal with my 5 star ratings, and this book happens to be the first beneficiary.
the premise of this book is similar to the premise of a lot of books that have come out recently. the most healthy things to eat are real foods, foods that were eaten hundreds of years ago. meat, dairy, real fats, etc... what i liked about it is she went into detail with what the nutritional value of different food items. she explained the nutritional differences between powdered milk, grain fed cow milk, and grass fed cow milk. she also explained how certain industrial food is processed and how the processing diminishes the nutrition. i learned a lot more than i thought i would from this book.
a lot of it, i couldn't really understand, for the life of me i'll never understand omega-3 and omega-6 and fatty acid chains and the chemical structures of saturated, unsaturated, polyunstaturated, fats...
i hesitate to give this book 5 stars for 2 reasons.
1. at times the tone was quite pretentious. if she said one more thing about the delicacies of her vegetables sauteed in real butter with raw milk yogurt and cheese on the side, i think i may have lost it.
2. going along with point 1, i think this book had very much of a preaching to the choir tone. since i guess i am part of the choir, i liked it, but it very well could have been because it was what i wanted to hear, so i wasn't reading with any skepticism. she didn't present many opposing view-points or give much credibility to the fact that maybe conventional nutritional wisdom has a little something to offer... what i actually want to do is read a book that counters some of the points that she makes..
...but really i liked the book. it made me want to eat more good meat, more fish, more whole milk foods, and start cooking with coconut oil and lard.
the premise of this book is similar to the premise of a lot of books that have come out recently. the most healthy things to eat are real foods, foods that were eaten hundreds of years ago. meat, dairy, real fats, etc... what i liked about it is she went into detail with what the nutritional value of different food items. she explained the nutritional differences between powdered milk, grain fed cow milk, and grass fed cow milk. she also explained how certain industrial food is processed and how the processing diminishes the nutrition. i learned a lot more than i thought i would from this book.
a lot of it, i couldn't really understand, for the life of me i'll never understand omega-3 and omega-6 and fatty acid chains and the chemical structures of saturated, unsaturated, polyunstaturated, fats...
i hesitate to give this book 5 stars for 2 reasons.
1. at times the tone was quite pretentious. if she said one more thing about the delicacies of her vegetables sauteed in real butter with raw milk yogurt and cheese on the side, i think i may have lost it.
2. going along with point 1, i think this book had very much of a preaching to the choir tone. since i guess i am part of the choir, i liked it, but it very well could have been because it was what i wanted to hear, so i wasn't reading with any skepticism. she didn't present many opposing view-points or give much credibility to the fact that maybe conventional nutritional wisdom has a little something to offer... what i actually want to do is read a book that counters some of the points that she makes..
...but really i liked the book. it made me want to eat more good meat, more fish, more whole milk foods, and start cooking with coconut oil and lard.
December 20, 2007
if i could give this 2.5 stars, i would. the basic thesis makes intuitive sense to me and is supported in the scientific literature - "real" food is better for us than "industrial" food. fear not the butter nor the meat nor the duck fat. planck is very inconsistent about citing the scientific literature, and her monotone writing style presents JAMA articles with the same weight & merit as her mom's cholesterol story and some book she got on the sale rack at the health food store.
also, i can't remember the last time i read a non-fiction book wherein the author took herself so damn seriously. chapter subheadings such as "I describe the virtues of raw milk", "In London I am rescued by farmers' markets", and "My opinion on the minor vegetable oils" really grated on my nerves.
also, i can't remember the last time i read a non-fiction book wherein the author took herself so damn seriously. chapter subheadings such as "I describe the virtues of raw milk", "In London I am rescued by farmers' markets", and "My opinion on the minor vegetable oils" really grated on my nerves.
December 3, 2020
After realizing that I was eating too much processed food, I picked up this classic by Nina Planck. It's an excellent read and it strengthened my resolve to shift to a diet that focuses more on protein, vegetables, and fruit. I've been trying Nina's ways for a month now and I feel good! No more sugar highs and crashes and I've also noticed a change in taste sensations. I also agree with Nina about the food industry's tactics to convince us that fat is bad. I grew up in a farming town in England and fondly recall the milk with full cream that was delivered to our door each morning. I also grew to love Brussel sprouts. Definite a must-read if you are questioning the food you are buying in the grocery store.
July 16, 2020
I love this book! It explains the history of different food groups (dairy, meat, fish, fruits and vegetables, fats) and biologically how they affect the body. This is so informative and heavily cited with an updated 10th anniversary edition for 2016 so the information is relatively fresh.
December 31, 2024
I didn’t finish this book - the topics intrigue me however the style of writing is challenging and there is a lot of one sided thinking.
April 26, 2019
This book should have been titled, "My Diet: Eat What I Eat Because It's Old (aka Real) Food."
Based on the contents of this book, I was not surprised to learn that Planck's nutritional science credentials consist of the fact that she grew up on a farm and created several farmer's markets throughout London and Washington, D.C.
Ironically, despite having an issue with Planck's blatant cherry-picking of the same science she often criticizes, I agree with the basic premise of the book, which is that we need to eat more "real food." Planck loosely defines real food as "old" food or food grown/raised on the farm, harvested and sold locally, and, by default, is minimally processed.
And there is a certain truth to what she says. So many beautiful foods have been demonized from steak to eggs to milk to fruit to potatoes to grains to butter, all thanks to someone's take on the latest research about what is good for us and what is bad for us. But like Planck, I suspect the real problem isn't "real" food, "whole" food, or, as she puts it, "old" food, but highly processed foods that have been manipulated out the wahzoo.
Case in point, I recently worked with a client who was afraid to eat a baked potato in all its natural glory, but yet thought her low-salt, low-fat wheat thins were a health food.
Unfortunately for Planck, and for the reader, she takes too many liberties in making her case. I also thinks she goes way too far. According to Planck, it's not simply good enough to eat more whole foods like fruits and veggies, bean, lentils, unprocessed meats and grains. You have to drink unpasteurized milk from the local dairy, by imported cheeses made only from small independent farms where all the cows are grass-fed and free to roam as they please, and eat eggs from free-ranging chickens who were fattened up on grubs and other bugs they find in the yard. Believe me. I get it. Our food system has become extreme in many ways, and many of us wouldn't eat some of the things we do if we understood exactly how it got to our table. And surely there are many things that we could improve when it comes to our industrialized farming model. However, most people struggle to get the recommended servings of fruits and veggies let alone locally grown and responsibly farmed fruits and veggies. Nor do we have time to get all our foods from farmer's markets or cook elaborate meals made from scratch.
I also think her message is occasionally inconsistent when it fits her "beliefs" about food. For example, she talks about the importance of eating like our ancestors, but then goes on to sing the praises of fish oil supplements. She scoffs at the connection between cholesterol and heart disease then advises how you can lower your LDL cholesterol through her "real" food approach to eating. She says that saturated fat is actually good for us (contrary to what we are told by many experts or the "establishment), but doesn't address the difference between saturated fat in meat and those found in things like milk and coconut oil.
She has obviously read a lot and provides a robust bibliography of her sources. Yet I get the sense that she does what so many others do. She tends to regard those things that reinforce her belief highly, while discounting those things she doesn't.
I think she would have written a better book if she instead focused on the value of whole foods (not her version of real foods) and/or the advantages of a more traditional/local approach to farming as opposed to industrialized farming. Those were the moments in her book where I felt the narrative hit its mark. Only she gets greedy and starts making arguments that feel more grounded in belief and her interpretation of the science than the real science, which is fine as long as she presents it that way. For example, when it comes to saturated fat, the jury is still out, partly because not all saturated fats are created equal. That said, no body ever said stop eating beef. At least not the experts. They merely said reduce the amount of saturated fat you eat. Right or wrong? We don't know, or at least there is less confidence in the previously held recommendations. But to tell people that saturated fats are actually healthy is also misleading, because once again, it's not that simple. A more useful message for readers is that we don't know. Here is the evidence to date from both sides of the issue. Here is what I believe and why, and here is a common sense approach to interpreting and applying the evidence.
Not a bad book for someone who is already eating a whole foods diet and wants to take it to the next level, but completely unrealistic for the average person who wants to make better choices.
Based on the contents of this book, I was not surprised to learn that Planck's nutritional science credentials consist of the fact that she grew up on a farm and created several farmer's markets throughout London and Washington, D.C.
Ironically, despite having an issue with Planck's blatant cherry-picking of the same science she often criticizes, I agree with the basic premise of the book, which is that we need to eat more "real food." Planck loosely defines real food as "old" food or food grown/raised on the farm, harvested and sold locally, and, by default, is minimally processed.
And there is a certain truth to what she says. So many beautiful foods have been demonized from steak to eggs to milk to fruit to potatoes to grains to butter, all thanks to someone's take on the latest research about what is good for us and what is bad for us. But like Planck, I suspect the real problem isn't "real" food, "whole" food, or, as she puts it, "old" food, but highly processed foods that have been manipulated out the wahzoo.
Case in point, I recently worked with a client who was afraid to eat a baked potato in all its natural glory, but yet thought her low-salt, low-fat wheat thins were a health food.
Unfortunately for Planck, and for the reader, she takes too many liberties in making her case. I also thinks she goes way too far. According to Planck, it's not simply good enough to eat more whole foods like fruits and veggies, bean, lentils, unprocessed meats and grains. You have to drink unpasteurized milk from the local dairy, by imported cheeses made only from small independent farms where all the cows are grass-fed and free to roam as they please, and eat eggs from free-ranging chickens who were fattened up on grubs and other bugs they find in the yard. Believe me. I get it. Our food system has become extreme in many ways, and many of us wouldn't eat some of the things we do if we understood exactly how it got to our table. And surely there are many things that we could improve when it comes to our industrialized farming model. However, most people struggle to get the recommended servings of fruits and veggies let alone locally grown and responsibly farmed fruits and veggies. Nor do we have time to get all our foods from farmer's markets or cook elaborate meals made from scratch.
I also think her message is occasionally inconsistent when it fits her "beliefs" about food. For example, she talks about the importance of eating like our ancestors, but then goes on to sing the praises of fish oil supplements. She scoffs at the connection between cholesterol and heart disease then advises how you can lower your LDL cholesterol through her "real" food approach to eating. She says that saturated fat is actually good for us (contrary to what we are told by many experts or the "establishment), but doesn't address the difference between saturated fat in meat and those found in things like milk and coconut oil.
She has obviously read a lot and provides a robust bibliography of her sources. Yet I get the sense that she does what so many others do. She tends to regard those things that reinforce her belief highly, while discounting those things she doesn't.
I think she would have written a better book if she instead focused on the value of whole foods (not her version of real foods) and/or the advantages of a more traditional/local approach to farming as opposed to industrialized farming. Those were the moments in her book where I felt the narrative hit its mark. Only she gets greedy and starts making arguments that feel more grounded in belief and her interpretation of the science than the real science, which is fine as long as she presents it that way. For example, when it comes to saturated fat, the jury is still out, partly because not all saturated fats are created equal. That said, no body ever said stop eating beef. At least not the experts. They merely said reduce the amount of saturated fat you eat. Right or wrong? We don't know, or at least there is less confidence in the previously held recommendations. But to tell people that saturated fats are actually healthy is also misleading, because once again, it's not that simple. A more useful message for readers is that we don't know. Here is the evidence to date from both sides of the issue. Here is what I believe and why, and here is a common sense approach to interpreting and applying the evidence.
Not a bad book for someone who is already eating a whole foods diet and wants to take it to the next level, but completely unrealistic for the average person who wants to make better choices.
October 1, 2008
I have read a lot of books about food lately to seek guidance about what and how to eat for optimal health. This book provides strong arguments with supporting documentation for something that I have suspected for awhile: rather than focusing on fat/low fat, good carbs/bad carbs, being carnivorous or vegetarian, it really comes down to the quality of the food you eat.
Nina Planck illustrates how mass-produced, industrialized, and processed food has caused poor health more than eating supposedly 'dangerous' foods like meat or drinking whole milk. The key is to strive for quality and pure foods, i.e. grass-fed beef, free-range chickens, pesticide-free produce, unpasteurized whole milk, etc. She also suggests eating local food within its harvest season. This automatically creates a diverse and healthy diet.
She devotes a whole section to addressing concerns about certain foods being linked to cancer, heart disease and high cholesterol and this was most helpful because my concerns about all three have dictated my dietary choices.
I had read a lot of Planck's ideas in other food books (Omnivore's Dilemma, What To Eat, etc), but the way that she packages her argument and dietary recommendations is compelling. As someone who has been a vegetarian, a flexitarian, and pondered veganism, this book offered me another way of thinking about food. So while I won't start eating steak every night, this book has helped me open my mind to different ways of eating.
Thanks to my Goodreads friend Mike who put this on his to-read list and prompted me to read this book.
Nina Planck illustrates how mass-produced, industrialized, and processed food has caused poor health more than eating supposedly 'dangerous' foods like meat or drinking whole milk. The key is to strive for quality and pure foods, i.e. grass-fed beef, free-range chickens, pesticide-free produce, unpasteurized whole milk, etc. She also suggests eating local food within its harvest season. This automatically creates a diverse and healthy diet.
She devotes a whole section to addressing concerns about certain foods being linked to cancer, heart disease and high cholesterol and this was most helpful because my concerns about all three have dictated my dietary choices.
I had read a lot of Planck's ideas in other food books (Omnivore's Dilemma, What To Eat, etc), but the way that she packages her argument and dietary recommendations is compelling. As someone who has been a vegetarian, a flexitarian, and pondered veganism, this book offered me another way of thinking about food. So while I won't start eating steak every night, this book has helped me open my mind to different ways of eating.
Thanks to my Goodreads friend Mike who put this on his to-read list and prompted me to read this book.
September 15, 2010
Although Planck may have some good points buried deep within (namely, processed foods are bad, "real" foods are good), she bases this book on sweeping generalizations and vague assumptions. Her condescending, borderline-offensive attitude towards vegetarians and especially vegans is startling.
I also have many concerns with the content of this book, which, having taken courses in Boston University's graduate gastronomy program, I would contend are misguided or downright wrong. For example, Planck champions the ancestral diet, a diet heavy with meat and milk products, because she claims all of our ancestors ate this way and lived healthy lives. However, there were thousands of ancestral tribes roaming the world during the time period she mentions, and, due to their differing landscapes and resources, they had wildly varying diets. A few of these tribes may have even been vegetarian (!).
I take issue with Planck's seemingly scientific charts and figures. One chart seemed to indicate the growing obesity of the American population, compared specifically to an Inuit population. The chart was created in the 1970s. While few would contend America's obesity problem, Planck attributes it entirely to diet, leaving out the possibility that the Inuit people might be more active than the sedentary American population.
When planning my diet, I will not take any of Planck's writing into consideration.
I also have many concerns with the content of this book, which, having taken courses in Boston University's graduate gastronomy program, I would contend are misguided or downright wrong. For example, Planck champions the ancestral diet, a diet heavy with meat and milk products, because she claims all of our ancestors ate this way and lived healthy lives. However, there were thousands of ancestral tribes roaming the world during the time period she mentions, and, due to their differing landscapes and resources, they had wildly varying diets. A few of these tribes may have even been vegetarian (!).
I take issue with Planck's seemingly scientific charts and figures. One chart seemed to indicate the growing obesity of the American population, compared specifically to an Inuit population. The chart was created in the 1970s. While few would contend America's obesity problem, Planck attributes it entirely to diet, leaving out the possibility that the Inuit people might be more active than the sedentary American population.
When planning my diet, I will not take any of Planck's writing into consideration.
January 1, 2010
My Acupuncturist suggested I read this (after being very happy that I was already "on board" with Micheal Pollen and Barbara King Solver). Very good read, a lot of the exact same information you find in The Omnivore's Dilemma and Animal Vegetable Miracle, but then Planck follows up with very specific nutrient information and fascinating accounts of how and why the body absorbs and processes them.
In a nutshell: Eat the way your grandparents ate, and more importantly make sure those "traditional" foods don't come from any source that is industrialized in any way (don't just assume the organic label will protect you, though if you're in a bind, it's better than no organic label).
It's been a bit rough to include non-industrial, ethical and yet kosher red meat into our family's diet but so far we've been managing thanks to kosherorganic.com in Queens and the Park Slope Food COOP carrying Wise hamburger (and chicken).
In a nutshell: Eat the way your grandparents ate, and more importantly make sure those "traditional" foods don't come from any source that is industrialized in any way (don't just assume the organic label will protect you, though if you're in a bind, it's better than no organic label).
It's been a bit rough to include non-industrial, ethical and yet kosher red meat into our family's diet but so far we've been managing thanks to kosherorganic.com in Queens and the Park Slope Food COOP carrying Wise hamburger (and chicken).
November 9, 2013
I am completely perplexed as to how she found a publisher for this nonsense. She offered zero useful information and contradicted herself at every turn. She had an entire section bashing soy and in the next chapter stated it is useful to reduce cholesterol then in the following chapter built an argument as to why cholesterol doesn't matter. She dismissed research findings and used her own anecdotal experience as support for her views. She picks and chooses what research she wants to use. She correctly cautioned the reader about correlational findings when they did not support her point but used the same weak evidence to support her points. She spent pages bashing HDL and LDL information saying they don't affect heart disease only to say eating milk, cheese, and grass-fed meat is healthy because they reduce LDL levels. She sited ketchup as healthy because tomatoes have lycopene but mentioned nothing about the sugar. She selects the information she wants to use as much as all the other paleo books do but in a crazy mix of memoir and diet advice. Super frustrating to read and just ridiculous.
December 2, 2008
I hate to point out the obvious but the book spends a great deal of time discussing the various types of "fats" and without an official nutrition background by the last few chapters I found myself dog paddling a bit in the explanations of the HDL LDL ratios monosaccharides, disaccharides saturated monosaturated...I slightly coasted in general towards the end as the list grew longer in the various terms and explanations being used to get the message across to the reader.
The book efinitely influenced my perception of real foods and their overall good and I found that she consistntly referenced what probably amounted to 30 or 40 differnt books, publications and studies that I otherwise would not have come across without having them pointed out.
A nutrition primer that's great as general introduction.
The book efinitely influenced my perception of real foods and their overall good and I found that she consistntly referenced what probably amounted to 30 or 40 differnt books, publications and studies that I otherwise would not have come across without having them pointed out.
A nutrition primer that's great as general introduction.
April 30, 2012
I did not finish this book. While I don't disagree with much of what I did read, I couldn't help feel judged. For someone lacking any formal education in nutrition or agriculture, Planck proffers opinions as if they were facts. While there may be evidence to back up her claims, the book is poorly cited. It waffles between being a story of personal experience and childhood anecdotes and a scientific text book you'd expect to find on a reading list for an R.D. program.
If you are interested in traditional foods, real "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. You'll get all the same information, but it's easier to read and she supports her arguments with studies and facts (and does so without an undercurrent of judgment).
If you are interested in traditional foods, real "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. You'll get all the same information, but it's easier to read and she supports her arguments with studies and facts (and does so without an undercurrent of judgment).
May 22, 2012
I found the overall thesis compelling, but I wish Planck had acknowledged the structural barriers placed between most of the population and 'real food'. There are other ethical ethical sidesteps, too - I absolutely believe that fish is important to good nutrition, but how are we supposed to reconcile that with the overfished state of the oceans? Eating low on the food chain would be a start (sardines rather than tuna), but she barely brushes past the question.
I also wish I had the background to read the studies she cites, because the cholesterol stuff is fascinating.
I also wish I had the background to read the studies she cites, because the cholesterol stuff is fascinating.
April 7, 2009
I couldn't get through it. As a previous chef and a Foods and Nutrition Sciences student I have a fair knowledge about food. I found this to be irritating and contain a lot of bad information. It is one of the few books I have put down in disgust and not picked up again.
November 5, 2014
Loved this. Made me remember being a child and having good food and thinking I was deprived. LOVED it
October 3, 2021
Great book with scientific evidence and facts that corrected my misconceptions about good diet. Well, it's time to reset my food & cooking policy. The first policy is to change my cooking oil (from canola oil to either peanut-palm blend oil or virgin olive oil, to switch intermittently). The best about this book is I get to know more about the diversity of food culture, the history of agriculture & food industrialization throughout different parts of world. The way to healthy diet is actually very simple, eat real food in moderation, get rid of industrial foods/ processed food.
May 13, 2024
3.5 stars
October 2, 2009
Ok, so I love this. Please ask me to borrow it. I picked it up at a friend's house and started reading it and immediately went out and bought it. I am partial to food and nutrition writing as it is, and nutrition trends, but reading this, something just clicked.
As everyone else has said, this book is basically about how industrial fats and refined foods, especially sugar, white flour, and hydrogenated vegetable oils, are what is causing Americans to have a high rate of heart attacks, cancer, and overall grumpiness.
Unprocessed foods, including milk and meat and the saturated fat they come with, are good for you. I enjoyed her scientific diatribes, and to me, the statistics and studies she cited seemed sound. Other people have differing opinions about that, but statistics are like that and people see what they want to in them, so I am not going to argue against people who say her studies are wack. Her's is a philosophy that especially appeals to those of us who like government conspiracy theories, especially those theories that are actually true, like that the FDA has other agendas besides making sure you eat healthy food. My mother is a nutritionist and used to work for the ADA...she fed me frozen vegan junk food, margarine, diet sodas, etc. She still eats this way. Maybe I am just rebelling.
For me-I have read about how disgusting and unhealthy the commercial meat and dairy industries are, but feel like crap when I try to eliminate those foods from my diet. That's Planck's personal experiences as well, and some people say it's annoying to have to keep reading about her experiences, but I liked that aspect to the book, even if it was just because it confirmed my own.
This is the first book I have read that tells about all kinds of foods, vegetables included, and what happens to them in industrial farming. It never really clicked in my head how fucked up it is to say, do things like clean vegetables with chlorine, which is typical in our society. Those bagged salads! Chlorine! That's how baby spinach stays fresh! You like that? Well this book is filled with a lot of those little morsels sure to horrify.
So I do know what NOT to eat...as far as the what TO eat part, it seems people have complaints about her explanations there. It's really expensive to eat this way, and not everyone's husband is a famous, wealthy, raw cheesemonger. However, information is never a bad thing, after reading this you are armed with the information and can choose to put your money where your mouth is, or not. I do think that eating organic vegetables, grass fed beef, pastured eggs, and all that is difficult for a lot of people and espscially families. I know just FINDING these things can be difficult. It sucks that poor people and uneducated people and especially those who are both are duped into saving money by eating shitty processed, subsidized foods. But everyone can choose to make some of the choices encouraged by Planck. Cooking for yourself is half the battle here. I think awareness is the first step to fixing what's wrong with our food and this book is encouraging in that respect. I am not convinced that if everyone did everything she said, it's even possible to produce that much healthy food, because there are just too many of us, you know? That's what got us into this mess in the first place. But I think this book is about personal choices, not solving every problem of factory farming and world hunger outright.
Seriously though, do you know how hard it is to find raw milk and butter? I'm trying and it's damn near impossible.
As everyone else has said, this book is basically about how industrial fats and refined foods, especially sugar, white flour, and hydrogenated vegetable oils, are what is causing Americans to have a high rate of heart attacks, cancer, and overall grumpiness.
Unprocessed foods, including milk and meat and the saturated fat they come with, are good for you. I enjoyed her scientific diatribes, and to me, the statistics and studies she cited seemed sound. Other people have differing opinions about that, but statistics are like that and people see what they want to in them, so I am not going to argue against people who say her studies are wack. Her's is a philosophy that especially appeals to those of us who like government conspiracy theories, especially those theories that are actually true, like that the FDA has other agendas besides making sure you eat healthy food. My mother is a nutritionist and used to work for the ADA...she fed me frozen vegan junk food, margarine, diet sodas, etc. She still eats this way. Maybe I am just rebelling.
For me-I have read about how disgusting and unhealthy the commercial meat and dairy industries are, but feel like crap when I try to eliminate those foods from my diet. That's Planck's personal experiences as well, and some people say it's annoying to have to keep reading about her experiences, but I liked that aspect to the book, even if it was just because it confirmed my own.
This is the first book I have read that tells about all kinds of foods, vegetables included, and what happens to them in industrial farming. It never really clicked in my head how fucked up it is to say, do things like clean vegetables with chlorine, which is typical in our society. Those bagged salads! Chlorine! That's how baby spinach stays fresh! You like that? Well this book is filled with a lot of those little morsels sure to horrify.
So I do know what NOT to eat...as far as the what TO eat part, it seems people have complaints about her explanations there. It's really expensive to eat this way, and not everyone's husband is a famous, wealthy, raw cheesemonger. However, information is never a bad thing, after reading this you are armed with the information and can choose to put your money where your mouth is, or not. I do think that eating organic vegetables, grass fed beef, pastured eggs, and all that is difficult for a lot of people and espscially families. I know just FINDING these things can be difficult. It sucks that poor people and uneducated people and especially those who are both are duped into saving money by eating shitty processed, subsidized foods. But everyone can choose to make some of the choices encouraged by Planck. Cooking for yourself is half the battle here. I think awareness is the first step to fixing what's wrong with our food and this book is encouraging in that respect. I am not convinced that if everyone did everything she said, it's even possible to produce that much healthy food, because there are just too many of us, you know? That's what got us into this mess in the first place. But I think this book is about personal choices, not solving every problem of factory farming and world hunger outright.
Seriously though, do you know how hard it is to find raw milk and butter? I'm trying and it's damn near impossible.
February 12, 2013
Engaging, informative, revolutionary -- this is a MUST READ / MUST OWN!!!!
Nina's upwardly mobile parents abandoned their promising career track in the northeast to move to Virginia and raise vegetables. She fleshes out the whys and wherefores with summaries of nutritional studies. As a young adult Nina opted for the vegetarian and then vegan lifestyle. Puzzled that her healthy lifestyle was neither producing robust health nor slimness for her, she began reading and researching the history of food and diet throughout the world. She shares here much of what she has learned with ample documentation. I'm certainly convinced, enough so that I gave this to all my siblings for Christmas this year!
Chapters include:
I Grow Up on Real Food, Lose My Way, and Come Home Again
Real Milk, Butter, and Cheese
Real Meat
Real Fish
Real Fruit and Vegetables
Real Fats
Industrial Fats
Other Real Foods
Beyond Cholesterol
The Omnivore's Dilemma
Nina's upwardly mobile parents abandoned their promising career track in the northeast to move to Virginia and raise vegetables. She fleshes out the whys and wherefores with summaries of nutritional studies. As a young adult Nina opted for the vegetarian and then vegan lifestyle. Puzzled that her healthy lifestyle was neither producing robust health nor slimness for her, she began reading and researching the history of food and diet throughout the world. She shares here much of what she has learned with ample documentation. I'm certainly convinced, enough so that I gave this to all my siblings for Christmas this year!
Chapters include:
I Grow Up on Real Food, Lose My Way, and Come Home Again
Real Milk, Butter, and Cheese
Real Meat
Real Fish
Real Fruit and Vegetables
Real Fats
Industrial Fats
Other Real Foods
Beyond Cholesterol
The Omnivore's Dilemma
January 10, 2011
In the genre of food lit, this one is missable. Not saying much that hasn't been covered better elsewhere, it should more accurately be called "Real Fats," because that's where the author spends most of her time. There's also too much subjectivity involved; the author seems to want the reader to accept as foregone fact that whole, raw milk tastes better than skim homogenized, when really many of her assertions are a matter of personal, well, taste, rather than concrete fact (though she frames them as such). Her tone is sanctimonious, her conclusions are suspect, and her science is shaky, all of which contribute to a book that comes across as not very... professional? reliable? trustworthy? Take your pick. I give it two stars because, oddly enough, I concur with her premise, I just strongly disliked the presentation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 467 reviews