some_stars | (no subject)

These last few months, I keep wanting to make posts about things that piss me off, and then I never have the energy to actually do so, because they piss me off too much and it's so draining. Like, I wanted to post about some incredibly disordered eating advice in Mark Bittman's Food Matters, which actually has some fantastic recipes in the back--more like recipe templates, which is SO useful--but the front half is just...ugh. Taking so much stuff that in theory is true and right (most people [that "most" is mine, not Bittman's] should eat mostly plant matter, for sustainability and the environment and health and so forth), and lacing it all with poison. I mean, you can go half a chapter or more nodding your head sensibly, and then suddenly the next page will practically light up with GET YOUR EATING DISORDER HERE.

And since I don't, actually, have the wherewithal to make that whole post, I will just share one particularly awful instance, from a section on how to eat in this new and proper way when you're not at home. Well, two instances, within a paragraph of each other. First he talks about how he keeps little snacks in his desk at work--popcorn, nuts and seeds, dried fruit, and sometimes crackers. This seems totally sensible...and then the next paragraph begins, "Needless to say, there are many days when this assortment doesn't cut it and I head upstairs to the company cafeteria for lunch."

This didn't actually explode my head--yet--but I kind of tripped over it because...that is a weird standard to set up. "For lunch, have some popcorn and a handful of dried fruit! And I guess if that's not enough, you can go get an actual meal." And what does that meal consist of? Bittman suggests egetable side dishes, salads, grilled vegetables, beans--quite reasonable so far--"and, if the pickings are slim, raw broccoli, cauliflower, [other vegetables]. I sometimes fill two plates with this stuff, and I assure you that while the volume is high the caloric density approaches zero."

So the solution to the Problem of Lunch is...a giant pile of plain raw vegetables. Leaving aside the protein issue, since it's true that most people get way more protein than they need (but not everyone, and certainly not people who are eating the way Mark Bittman tells them to), the idea that in order to "eat sane"--which is what he calls it--I have to choose four cups of raw broccoli and reject the Bad Food that is actually satisfying in any way...is fucked up. (And, hang on, I'm supposed to be trying to eat zero calories for lunch? This is an attractive goal? They didn't feed me zero-calorie meals when I was at fat camp, for god's sake.)

BUT, that's not actually the thing that pushed me over the edge--dammit, I've gone and written the whole post, and I REALLY didn't mean to, but oh well. It's a paragraph later, when he talks about the perils of trying to Eat Sane while "on the road, in airports, in strange cities":

"Sometimes I order two salads, or salad and soup and a side of vegetables. Sometimes I tough it out and buy nuts, carrot sticks, whatever I can find, and figure I'm going to be a little hungry that afternoon.

And sometimes I give up. [...]"

Those are our options, guys! We can scrounge up whatever healthy stuff is being served, or if there isn't any we can go hungry--GO HUNGRY, that's such a totally Sane approach to eating--or we can ~give up~ and eat the food that is available to us. You know, if we feel like being quitters. Sure, he goes on to say it's a long-range plan, and "what happens on any given day matters not at all"...because overeating "is not a physical addiction...you can recover from an off day the next day, with no lingering ill effects, even psychological ones." So giving up is okay, if you make sure to be extra good the next day. I notice he doesn't consider any possible ill effects--physical or "even" psychological--from forcing yourself to go hungry rather than eat the Bad Food. Some of us can't actually do that, Mark! Some of us NEED food! Several times a day, even!

Ugh, this is just so--grotesque. Because not only are the recipes wonderful and really, really helpful, the message is so important, and it's so difficult to find anybody promoting that message who doesn't get it all twisted up in fat-hate or health-as-morality/food-as-sin thinking, or victim-blaming about people who use unhealthy convenience foods because they have no other viable options, or other incredibly offensive and clueless class privilege, or willful blindness about the extent to which individual actors and their non-political lifestyle choices can be held responsible for causing and therefore fixing the nightmare of modern agribusiness, or dangerously restrictive bullshit like this. Or SOMETHING, some kind of poison that keeps this stuff from ever having any real impact.

Okay, that took thirty minutes, and now I don't actually feel any better, but I might as well post it and remember this lesson for next time.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, of course! Just don't eat! I never thought of that, no wonder I'm so fat.

Grrr.

I... am getting the impression that reading the non-recipe parts of this book may fall under the 'never read the comments' rule.

I will have another homemade chocolate brownie in this guy's honour.

If you like minimalist, basic, mostly-plants recipes, I know a great blog. stonesoup. All the recipes have five ingredients or fewer.

UGH UGH UGH that is so awful. And, like you say, such a shame when so much of the book is so useful otherwise. But dear god, the implication that there are good foods and bad foods, good eating behaviours and bad eating behaviours, that eating is a moral activity and you can get it wrong . . . that really burns me. UGH. I have to go to work now, or else this comment would be longer, but suffice it to say, ugh.

The super frustrating thing is that Bittman seems to be halfway there--or ALMOST there--a lot of the time. I mean, if the book were a nonstop parade of this shit I'd just dismiss it entirely. But he does things like talk about "cheating" in quotes and explain that it's not cheating, it's part of the plan to allow yourself such things...and then he calls it cheating again, sans quotes, a paragraph later. Or he'll emphasize that he doesn't believe in completely restricting anything, everything has a place in this diet in ~moderation~...but the language he uses, the way he suggests *not eating*, say otherwise. Or talking about being "super-strict" with himself all day until dusk and then going "wild." If I could just remove 10% of this book and heavily edit another 25%, it would be something I could fully endorse. But no.

That definitely sounds frustrating, where you get led along and you're nodding enthusiastically and then BOOM. It actually sounds like the author himself is struggling with those disordered attitudes towards food (not that I want to diagnose him, it's just - the way you describe it, it sounds like he's trying to convince himself that there's no such thing as "cheating," etc., but doesn't quite believe it).

I sometimes fill two plates with this stuff

I am hoping desperately that "this stuff" is intended to encompass the grilled vegetables, beans, etc., though the "caloric density" strongly suggests otherwise.

If he's actually suggesting eating two plates of raw broccoli as a meal, I might have to weep from horror.

I mean, I love broccoli, and I would not eat two plates of it raw.

Yeah, I ADORE cooked vegetables--and not cooked to death, just, you know, cooked--I will often happily make a meal of roast cauliflower and asparagus with fresh tomato sauce, or 4-5 cobs of really good corn with nothing on them, not even butter. When I'm at a nice restaurant and they have a vegetable platter, I usually order it rather than a meat entree. Even when I have a protein in my meal, I usually fill half my plate with veggies, and I often don't even bother to do anything to them besides steaming or roasting, and a little bit of olive oil and maybe salt. I already love vegetables, unlike most of the target audience for this book, and the suggestion that I eat a supermarket crudite platter for lunch, minus the dip, repulses even me, so how is that target audience going to feel about it?

Lightly-cooked broccoli, when it's still bright green and crunchy. With raw red cabbage, avocado, sliced bell peppers, bit of red onion, walnuts, olive oil, and balsamic vinegar. Pretty much my default salad.

That I could and have eaten two plates of, with or without an added protein source.

But the thought of two plates of raw broccoli for lunch makes me make small distressful noises. It's insulting to the concept of food, and delight in food, and the general idea that food can be nourishing and life-enhancing and is not meant to be penance.

(Not to mention the fact that it would double me personally up with indigestion and guarantee that I felldownwentboom with the cold shakes in the middle of the afternoon.)

I already love vegetables, unlike most of the target audience for this book, and the suggestion that I eat a supermarket crudite platter for lunch, minus the dip, repulses even me, so how is that target audience going to feel about it?

Your point, it is good.

what are those of us with non-standard blood sugar levels supposed to do? if i don't eat meals with protein on a regular basis and i go into "gnaw your arm off and then fall over" territory (i'm hypoglycemic). i can't imagine a diabetic on that eating plan.