-->

Food Pyramid

 

ChefHomeLogo

Rethinking Nutritional Advice

Back in the 1980's food researchers and writers decided that the reason Americans got more heart attacks than anyone else in the world was because we eat more bacon and steak. There was probably an element of truth in this. They reasoned further that most people in most parts of the world ate more carbohydrates than do Americans; therefore, Americans should replace meat with carbohydrates. There was, perhaps a bit less truth in this. Americans were told to replace beef with carbohydrates. And we got fat. Really fat. Replacing beef with cake, it turned out, was a bad replacement. It's twenty five years later and we are, as a nation, fatter , much more prone to diabetes, and just about as prone to heart disease as before. So what went wrong?

What's Wrong

The ideas we present below, by the way, are mostly drawn from a New York Times Article by Gary Taubes called "What if it's all a big fat Lie?"(This article was written a year before the FDA released its new food pyramid. The new MyPyramid might be better, but it crashes my browser.)

  1. Replacing protein with sugar is just about the worst trade-off you can make in terms of health. By just about all measures, sugar ingested in large quantities in sedentary people is toxic - worse than lard. There are numbers that suggest that lard increases the good kind of cholesterol, possibly lowering the chance of heart disease. Sugar always raises triglicerides which are at least as important in predicting heart disease. And it leads to diabetes, which is approaching epidemic proportions in the US.
  2. Replacing saturated animal fat with some things is good; but the thing to replace it with is vegetable fat. Olive oil, peanut oil and canola oil are good. If lard is bad, margarine is worse.
  3. We were told that eggs were bad because they have lots of cholesterol. They do have lots of cholestrol, but they may just turn out to be a key food in controlling cholesterol. We speculate that once all the good things about eggs are factored in - their high quality protein, their low fat, their high amount of lecithin, and so on, the egg will prove to have a crucial role in any healthy diet. Certainly if you can replace sugary cereal with eggs for breakfast, you are better off.
  4. Instead of eating low carbohydrate vegetables like tomatoes, spinach, lettuce, cabbage, celery, mushrooms, peppers, and brussels sprouts, we ate bread and cake and corn chips and candy. This was a massively huge mistake. And one of the things that pushed us in this direction was the elimination of bacon and butter from our diets - the very foods that would make these good vegetables edible.
  5. Instead of eating whole grains like rolled oats which release their carbohydrate loads slowly, we ate cake and white bread which can cause high blood sugar spikes. Or we ate granola bars which are saturated with sugar; same deal.
  6. Instead of eating beans which have lots of fiber and whose carbohydrates are very complex and are released slowly, we drank Coca Cola. Again, more sugar spikes, sugar blues, overeating.

The whole thing is such a fiasco that several years ago the deans of the schools of public health at Harvard and Stanford called for a complete re-thinking of dietary recommendations. They called for the carbohydrate level to be reduced and the protein and fat levels in our diets to be increased. The evidence that this is the right thing to do is so clear that the federal government has torn down that old food pyramid and built a new one. This strikes me as a good idea on a number of fronts. We need a change.

I lived for two years in a vegetarian co-op, and I observe that there people ate primarily whole grain rice and beans. They were healthy, energetic, and lean. There were some vegetables, there was some fruit. Tofu was the favorite indulgence. Even though I have a tendency to put on weight, I did very well living on the diet there. The large part of the diet was beans which kept me feeling satiated through the day and I was easily able to resist over-eating. The secret of their success was that the house I lived in eschewed processed foods. No sugar, no white flour, no white rice. We did not eat a lot of potatoes. All grains had to be served with their germ and bran. Only two processed foods were oficially sanctioned: tofu and vegetable oil. We did occasionally cheat and consume no-sugar added jam. But generally speaking, the diet was whole, unprocessed foods. It was high in carbohydrates, but it was very high in fiber. And we always ate beans with grains.

People in India and China live on diets not far afield from this diet. When we are feeling charitable we will say this is the motivation for the original food pyramid. One problem with the original food pyramid was that it failed completely to distinguish between 'good carbohydrates' and 'bad carbohydrates.' It failed to distinguish between highly processed foods that are digested fully before they reach the gut and foods that nourish and protect vital intestinal flora. Another was that it failed completely to distinguish between 'good fats,' and 'bad fats.' A third was that failed to distinguish between the social pressures in relatively poor countries where people eat in large extended family groups and those in rich countries where people eat alone or in tiny nuclear family groups. The social forces in India and China powerfully check the most eggregious examples of overeating. But the social forces in America tend to encourage excess. Furthermore, it failed to come to grips with the fact that in western regions where pasta is eaten - Naples Italy for example - drammatic weight gain with age is much more common than in places where refined carbohydrates are less prominent in the daily diet. And finally, in most places where people are thin, there have also been periodic famines for many centuries and people generally live physically active lives.

Back in the 1960's when school nutrition courses switched from teaching seven food groups to four, it was assumed that all carbohydrates and all fats were pretty much the same. But with each passing year we learn more reasons why this assumption is patently false. It is vital to have at least a sketchy understanding about which fats and carbs are good and why. The good fats are olive oil, peanut oil, and canola oil. They are polyunsaturated and they lower bad cholesterol. If it is liquid at room temperature, it's probably not too bad. If it is solid at room temperature, it's probably not too good. Simple as that. And carbohydrates? Sugar is deadly. Yes literally. Eating too much sugar causes the body to produce too much insulin. This ultimately causes blood sugar to drop, causing severe hunger which can only be sated by more carbs which starts the cycle over again. The inevitable end -for about at third or a half of the population is to gain weight, become obese, get insulin resistant, then become diabetic or die of heart disease. Diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions as all the people who learned to eat their carbs in the 1980s come of age.

If it tastes sweet, exercise caution. Whole grains with bran are okay in moderation. If whole grains are combined with beans and vegetables, they can be the basis of a diet. Fiber slows the absorption of sugar and it absorbs nasty things your liver is dumping into your digestive system. You know what it means to take out the garbage. What happens to your house if you go for ten weeks without taking out any garbage? Same thing happens to your body if you go a few weeks without ample fiber. This means that beans, whole oats, apples, and prunes are really the best carbohydrate food you can get. They have lots of fiber. But this is just one reason why beans and whole grains are important. Whole grain oats and apples contain soluable fiber which, some sources believe, will do a better job of latching on to various toxins and removing them from the body. This explains why oat bran is used to lower cholesterol.

Complex carbohydrates release sugar into the bloodstream slowly, feeding your body as it uses up sugars. If sugars go into the bloodstream too quickly, the body releases too much insulin, and you feel tired and hungry. And as we just explained, do this for several decades and your body becomes insulin insensitive, the first step on the path to diabetes. If food is white or it tastes sweet, avoid it if you can (white fish, milk, and apple are exceptions) because eating it puts you on the sugar roller coaster. This means, no bread, no potatoes, no doughnuts, no pasta, no white rice, no tortilla chips, no potato chips - you get the picture. Beans have the most complex carbohydrates among plants, so they help you feel full and provide energy over a long long time. They also happen to be packed with nutrients.

As a side note, medical science is discovering that the things that give food color, flavinoids, are also turning out to be vital nutrients. In other words, the very thing that gives a food its color can be beneficial to your health. The first example of this, long known, is beta carotine which gives carrots and winter squash their orange coloration. But, it turns out that purple foods and green foods all have special nutrients that you can only get from foods of those colors. Just one more reason to eschew white food.

So there are several really big, really important rules;

A New Food Pyramid

To help define what constitutes a balanced diet, we have conceived a food pyramid.

Food Pyramid It's pretty self-explanatory. The area of each triangle is proportional to the number of servings one should have from that group. So we believe that one ought to have at least three or four servings of low-starch vegetables per day - spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, tomatoes, zucchini, eggplant, kale, lettuce, cabbage, and so on. One ought to have two to three servings of beans per day. One ought to have two or three servings of fish, poultry, or whole grains per day; two or three servings of eggs, milk, and cheese, one or two servings of root vegetables, two servings of fruits, one or two servings of nuts, and one serving of vegetable oils. Red meats are fine, especially if trimmed of fat. One serving is about it. As for sugar, lard, and flour; well, the food pyramid stands without these. Leave them out if you can. If you must have them, try to eat no more than one serving of each. Active people without health problems may do just fine incorporating sugar, flour and lard into their diets, provided they have no problems with high cholesterol, diebetes, or heart disease.

Group
Servings / Day
Leafy Greens
3 to 4
Minimum
More is better
Beans
2 to 3
Nominal
Get the right amount

Fish or Poultry / Whole Grains

2 to 3
Nominal
"
Eggs, Dairy
2 to 3
Nominal
"
Root Veggies
1 to 2
Nominal
"
Fruits
2
Nominal
"
Nuts
1
Nominal
"
Veggie Oils
2
Nominal
"
Red Meat
1
Maximum
Less is better
White Food
1
Maximum
Less is better

Nominally, we consider a serving of greens, beans, fish and poultry, root veggies, red meat, and fruits to be roughly 1/2 cup or 100 grams or 4 oz. A serving of nuts is about half this size. A tablespoon is a serving of oil. The practical nutritional limitation on serving size is that no serving should have substantially more than 100 calories. People on limited calorie diets may wish to be more restrictive and use a number three quarters or even half this size. If a food delivers substantially more than this number of calories in a portion, then it should be considered more than one serving - it should be considered a number of servings large enough that the calories per serving is roughly 100. The exception is nuts. We view nuts to have such a high importance that we define a serving to be 1/4 cup even though this might amount to 150 calories. And we view the importance of soluable fiber to be so great that one can add in two raw apples or 1 cup of unsweetened applesauce or 1/2 cup of oat bran per day; in fact they really belong in the daily diet, even though they do not appear in the pyramid. Vegetarians who eat plenty of whole grains and beans may not gain much from the additional fiber, but most other people will.

If you are not a vegetarian, you may do well without more than two servings of grains. Feel free to eliminate them from your diet. If you do, be sure to take dietary supplements to make up for missing B vitamins and eat plenty of mushrooms, and beans. Or eat Marmite. If you are a vegetarian, then the fish and poultry triangle will be whole grains. You will not get enough vitamin B12 without some supplementation; Take either yeast extract or vitaminB12 pills. This is imperative for good neurological health. And if you are a vegan, the eggs, milk, and cheese section needs to be soy, sesame, and whole grains - lots of wheat germ.

This pyramid is helpful no matter what approach one is taking to food and eating because it groups foods by common qualities and it draws distinctions between foods that have meaningful distinctions. These are both necessary parts of charting out a path to healthy eating; or of simplifying the problem so that a six year old can make wise choices. We have high hopes that whatever the US government's pyramid looks like, it too will be of use in a broad number of situations.

The pyramid is built this way to maximize the amount of nutrients one gets, to maximize the amount of fiber one gets, to minimize the empty calories one consumes, to minimize the amount of animal fat one consumes, to get complete proteins, and to suggest an eating pattern that would release nutrients into the blood stream at roughly the rate at which they are used but the body to avoid insulin resistance and produce high energy levels. It is built to combine foods with similar nutritional effects in a single box and divide ones with different effects into different boxes.

It comes as a surprise to the person who constructed this diagram that fish and poultry, in this model, fill the same nutritional niche, approximately, as grains. There is a good explanation: they provide small amounts of fats, complement the proteins provided by beans, and introduce some additional vitamins. To a person who does not already eat enough of the other foods in this pyramid, this will seem a little strange. But the more one contemplates the place of fish and poultry, the more one realizes that the primary purpose of this group is to supply quality protein. And carefully eating grains and beans together at every meal will accomplish the same thing. As for the omega-3 fats in fish, it is possible that the need for these is lower in vegetarians. Certainly these oils are not being called upon to offset the negative effects of consuming too much lard! If this is a concern one can take oil supplements that are vegan and that fill most of the gap. And, there are even prominent Indian vegetarian Brahmins who will not give up their fish.

Food Pyramid FAQ
  1. What's the deal with nuts? Nuts are excellent sources of fiber, protein, good fats, minerals, and vitamin E. There is evidence that people who eat nuts regularly have lower incidence of heart disease. We believe that a concerted effort to include nuts in a diet will improve overall health. Nuts are distinct from every other group because of their unique set of characteristics; if one were to force them into another box, they might fit well with dairy because of their high calcium and phosphorous content. On the other hand, they might fit well with beans were it not for their high levels of fat. In any case, the new proposed food pyramid fails to meet the fairly scanty RDA for vitamin E - at least it did when I last checked. There is evidence for increased levels of cardiac protection up to about three times the RDA. In other words, the proposed food pyramid - which is aimed at reducing the incidence of heart disease recommends that we eat less than one third the amount of vitamin E that would give us the most protection from heart disease. It's difficult to find any scientific rationale for this. What is our response? NUTS!
  2. What is a low starch vegetable? Leafy greens such as spinach, and kale, lettuce, cabbage, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, radishes, summer squash, zucchini, tomatoes, eggplant, bell peppers. Onions and garlic would be as well, though one tends to think of these vegetables as condiments or nutrition-neutral items. There is no real maximum here. Eat as much of these items as you can. But certainly get four big servings per day.
  3. What is a root vegetable? Carrots, potatoes, parsnips, celeriac, sweet potato, beets, rutabaga, turnip, pumpkin, and winter squash. They fall in a group because of high starch content. The orange colored ones are exceptional sources of vitamin A. Several of the white ones are good sources of vitamin C. Most are reasonably good sources of fiber. But root vegetables release sugar into the blood stream quickly - sometimes faster than pasta and bread. This means that they should be eaten in moderation.
  4. Why no more than two fruits? Fruits are high in acids that can be hard to digest, and they are high in sugar. If you are very active, feel free to eat a little more fruit. A few fruits are very high in soluable fiber such as plums and apples. Go ahead and take a freebie of either of these, or a dried fig.
  5. What about red meat? If you trim most of the fat off a steak and you eat four or six ounces of lean steak per day, I'll bet it will do almost no harm. It is almost certainly better than eating eight ounces of pasta every day. Ditto for a lean pork chop. When it comes to downing a 16 ounch well-marbled porterhouse steak each day, there might be a problem (though nobody has definitively demonstrated what it would be or that there really is one: except that super-high protein diets are believed to leach calcium from teeth and bones leading to dental carries and osteoporosis.) Dietary advice over the ages has always suggested that one refrain from red meat at least one day per week. And this still seems like good advice. There's a lot of energy expended by the body in eliminating the wastes associated with digesting meats, so a few days off is rejuvenating. Furthermore, the creation of red meat consumes far more water and energy resources than the production of virtually any other food item. So eating less red meat is an environmentally responsible thing to do.
  6. What's with the veggie oils; are you saying we should eat fat? Exactly. There is evidence that polyunsaturated and unsaturated fats in olive, peanut, and canola oils can help reverse damage done by margarine and lard. And there is strong evidence that omega-3 oils found in fatty fish like salmon and omega 6 & 9 oils found in borage oil and linseed oil are powerful anti-inflammatory agents. In fact, it is highly likely that it is their anti-inflammatory properties that provide much of the protection against heart disease and possibly diabetes. We certainly are saying eat more fat; if it is the right kind of fat. And take omega-3 oils as supplements.
  7. Why so many beans; isn't this a windy proposition? Well, it seems to be true that if you are used to eating a lot of red meat, beans will cause a bit of gas. But if you eat beans daily, your digestive flora will get used to it, and there will be no more wind - except for when you eat too much meat! The truth is that beans are the ideal food because they:
    1. have lots of fiber which helps you feel full and which helps absorb toxins your liver dumps into your digestive system
    2. release sugars ever so slowly so that you feel satiated for many hours after eating - 6, 8, or even 12 hours.
    3. are packed with vitamins and minerals - on a per calorie basis they are twice as nutrient dense as ground beef for most of beef's list of nutrients
    4. they are inexpensive and environmentally lower impact than any meat
    5. they can be made into or incorporated into any dish that includes or would have included meat or dairy.
  8. Isn't all that dairy bad? Mostly the answer is NO. Some people are lactose intolerant - a digestive problem that is painful and inconvenient. Milk contains lactose. So do soft cheeses. Lactose intolerant people need to avoid these foods all the time. Hard cheeses typically do not have much lactose, so many lactose-intolerant people can eat them. Whole milk, cheese, ice cream, and butter do contain milkfat and cholesterol. People who, on the advice of their doctors, are moderating their dietary intake of saturated fats and cholesterol will wish to eat less dairy. But it has also been shown that eating dairy can help one lose weight. And that adequate levels of dietary calcium lower the risk of heart disease. Both of these factors have proven links to increased cardiac health. There is still no study that shows that lowering cholesterol by consuming less dairy will improve heart health. So it makes no sense to arbitrarily eschew dairy products from your diet. If you do not eat dairy, then be sure to take calcuim citrate supplements daily, eat plenty of other calcium rich foods like almonds, artichoke hearts, broccoli, tofu, and sesame. We've already mentioned that eggs are not a problem - they do not raise cholesterol. Eggs are a superior source of protein, but they are not a source of calcium.
  9. Grain is so much different from chicken, why are they in the same box? If you are eating your beans and everything else to the left of this triangle, then fish and poutry primarily provide supplementary high quality protein. Vegetarians have chosen to eat less protein, and will get complete protein by eating beans with grains. Vegans will have chosen to give up eggs and dairy and they will need to substitute soy, sesame, and the germs of grains (i.e. wheat germ) for eggs, milk, and cheese. Overall, these two complementary strategies will provide the body ample opportunity to obtain most of the nutrients it requires.
  10. What do the colors mean? First of all, there are almost no foods that are greyish aqua. Perhaps the mold in blue cheese is the only exception. Essentially, we eat no grayish-aqua food. That's why sugar, lard, and flour are painted aqua. Everything else is painted a color that is reminiscent of or consonant with at least one member of the group: the olive green of olive oil, the red of red meats, the faded yellow of cheese or scrambled egg, the dark red of kidney beans, the toasty color of whole grains and roasted chicken. And so on.
  11. How should this chart be used? I think kindergardeners should be forced to memorize it. I believe that regardless of what we learn about food and nutrition in the future, this will provide a strong intuitive framework to understand further developments. There are a few recently developed ideas missing; one is that color in food matters. Dark blue, purple, and black foods, for instance, contain bioflavenoids that have some magical property that I cannot remember. Orange foods, as we all know, contain vitamin A. Similar arguments for green (iron..) red, yellow, and so on. But whatever we learn, the foods we eat will continue to posess fundamental qualities that naturally divide them into these categories.
  12. How would one describe the properties associated with each category? Since you asked...
    1. Low starch vegetables. These vegetables typically have very few calories, and they are typically rich in vitamin A, C, iron, K, and of course, fiber. In a nation where calories are cheap, these foods help produce good health and satiety.
    2. Beans. They are high in complex and slowly released starch, protein, fiber, B vitamins and minerals, and fiber. The very complex and break down slowly, providing a sustained release of energy.
    3. Grains. Or Poultry+Fish. Grains provide complementary proteins to beans. Grains, if stripped of bran and germ and ground into flour will digest quickly and can cause all sorts of diseases. Whole grains, however, are good sources of B vitamins, vitamin E, and fiber. Poultry and fish are good sources of B vitamins and protein. Some fatty fish are superior sources of omega -3 oils.
    4. Eggs + Dairy. Complete proteins. Also, the dairy provides the bulk of the calcium (nuts pick up the slack). The fats are less bad than other animal fats.
    5. Nuts. Good fats and oils, high in fiber, protein, vitamin E, minerals. They are also great sources of omega-3 oils which are shown to be vital to both mental health and cardiac health.
    6. Fruits. High in vitamins A, C, potassium, soluable fiber, sugar.
    7. Root vegetables. High in fiber, vitamin A, starch. Enough sugar to cause one to think twice about eating too much.
    8. Red meat. High in protein, iron, vitamin B12. Its saturated fat can cause all sorts of diseases.
    9. Good oils. Fight circulatory and coronary diseases, diabetes, depression, and a host of maladies.
    10. White Foods: Lard, sugar, flour cause or contribute to pretty much every malady known to man that is related to diet, except possibly certain specific food allergies. Even food allergies can frequently be exacerbated by white foods.
  13. If all these things are bad for you, why is so much of this site about desserts and potatoes, and so on? I beleive in taking all things in moderation, including good advice. I mean, at one time in history the original food pyramid which had us eating six servings of pasta a day was 'good advice.' Now we know it is 'bad advice.' We believe that you should find what works for you. If you can eat a pound of chocolate a day and stay thin, alert, healthy and happy, then maybe you should do this sometimes. But if you find you need some help getting healthy, do consider the ideas on this page and see if any of them work for you. And if you have children, do feed them yummy low starch vegetables and high protein foods, and not too much sugar, flour, and lard. Everyone will be happier for it.
  14. In which box would mushrooms fit? Mushrooms are magic, you can place them in the beans box or in the fish/chicken box. Or you can replace one 'low fat vegetable' with mushrooms. They do not really fit in any box; but because they are low in sugar, fat, starch, calories, they don't cause many problems. High in protein, fiber, and B vitamins, they work nutritionally as would beans or meat. If mushrooms were cultivated as intensely and eaten as prolifically as grains are today, they would have a box of their own. Maybe one day they will replace the red meat triangle.
  15. What about the seven food groups I learned about in the 1950's? Yes, I remember there were seven, but I cannot remember what they were. I believe they were broken down along lines that are fairly parallel to the lines here.For instance, there was a green leafyvegetable group, a red meat group, a fish and poultry group, a grains group and so on. It turns out that there really are seven, ninet, or a dozen fairly natural bins into which one can sort foods. Someone long ago got pretty close with seven. Then some idiot came along in the 1960's and made it four. (Nothing personal, but we have proven it was an idiotic idea, have we not?) The four food groups ended up grouping all sorts of good things with all sorts of bad things. It blurred almost every important distinction one can make about food. The food pyramid above, by the way, is influenced by the way vegetarians and vegans view the world. It is influenced by the way people who invented the ideas of 'food combining' view the world. And it is influenced by the latest research that tells us that saturated fat and simple carbohydrates are bad, and that everything else, in balance, is good. It occurs to me that by drawing one or two more lines or by excising solanaceous foods (eggplant, tomato, bell pepper) one could also easily incorporate the macrobiotic world view. In other words, except for the crazyness of official US government-sanctioned idea about how we should eat, this food pyramid can be used to illustrate almost any crucial eating or dietary principle or practice. (To illustrate why we really need lots of food groups consider that there are seven distinct macronutrients: water, fiber, complex carbs, simple carbs, saturated fat, unsaturated fat, and protein. All foods are composed of nothing but these macro-components. For arbitrary reasons we will say a food is 'high in' the two most prominent macronutrients. In this case the number of categories is described by the field of combinitorics as seven items chosen two at a time= 7!/ (2! 5!) =21. In other words, if we say a food is high in just one macronutrient, there are seven food groups. If we say a food is high in its two most prominent macronutrients, there are twenty one. It turns out that if we follow this logic, we end up describing foods in a very natural manner. This one is high in water and saturated fat ( butter .) This one is high in protein and water (fish, chicken breast. ) This one is high in protein and fat (red meat.) This one is high in fiber and water (greens.) This one is high in fiber and protein (beans.) And so on. The point is that we need an adequately large number of groups in order to make all the required distinctions. If we then go on to say that we want food groups to say meaningful things about vitamins and minerals, there could be an uncountably large number of groups - more groups than there are foods. The good news is that lots of foods have strong similarities to each other. And in the natural world there are not many foods that are high in carbohydrates and high in fats, for instance - just nuts. This suggests that we may not need twenty one food groups. The point is, we need enough food groups to make all the critical distinctions. And if we care about the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and fiber, complex, and simple carbohydrates, then four food groups is completely out of the question. There are at least six macronutrients besides water. Any system that fails to make distinctions based on this fact fails.
  16. What about butter. Butter is 'the sugar that makes the medicine go down.' When it makes culinary sense to use olive oil or another vegetable oil, I do that. I try to avoid foods built from butter as a structural ingredient - i.e. sugar cookies and cake. But when I make a vegetable dish to serve two people I simply don't think twice about adding a tablespoon or two of butter. I know that without the butter, I'll probably not eat the vegetable dish. With the butter, I will enjoy it and want to cook it again. Butter is the cost of eating many vegetables. I still fall short of three low-starch vegetables per day and I'm not eating butter with every low fat vegetable, so I'm not overyly worried about it. I also eat ample amounts of vegetable oil and soy, and my cholesterol level is under control. I think this is good advice for people like myself.

Practical Advice

Of course, our bad health is not just the fault of following bad advice from groups not always the best informed nor the best intentioned. It is a result also of not doing things we know are good for us; namely getting excercise. It is no coincidence, I think, that the generation that was raised watching television and professional sports is the generation showing the greatest mid-life expansion. Television brought us indoors and taught us to be static when we play. Professional sport changed sports from being participatory to being spectacle, theater. We exercise vicariously. But this is well outside the bounds of the food pyramid and eating sensibly.

If you want my own vote for the most sensible way to eat, consider the South Beach Diet. It manages to package together most of the best known, proven practices of health and nutrition. Or, if you are interested in cookbooks that meet special dietary needs, see the special diet cookbook page of this site. Those without serious nutritional problems should just eat sensibly.

Here are TEN words to a healthy lifestyle.

Do these things, and you are well on your way to living well.

Eat well and prosper.

 

 
P.S. a Philosophical Note

How did things get so messed up? It's because we, as Americans, do not know what science is. We do not do science. (Alexis de Tocqville's Democracy in America published in 1832 noted the phenomenon, and not much has changed. Notice also that almost all of America's great scientists have been imported - first or second generation- from the European continent. )

Science is the gaining of insight and understanding about the way the natural world functions by careful observation, reflection, model making, and testing. In America there is much observation, but it is rarely well informed by model making. Too many of our 'best scientists' do almost none of this. Good science is mostly detective work. It requires intuition, imagination, understanding. It requires that one have a solid understanding of the fundamentals and can apply this understanding in new ways to new problems. It insists on building new, testable quantitative models to help interpret otherwise confusing data. But in my own education and technical work I cannot tell you how many times I have encountered trained, credentialled people who had not even the most rudimentary understanding of the fundamentals - not in any way that they could be applied accurately to real world problems.

In the field of nutrition people have, for centuries, been making trenchant obserations about how things we eat affect us. Hippocrates, the 'patron saint' of modern medicine, the man for whom the Hippocratic oath taken by every medical doctor is named, in addition to saying 'first, do no harm' said 'let food be your medicine and medicine be your food.' He believed that food had a profound effect on health. Ironically, medical doctors of the twentieth century all took the Hippocratic oath - every one - And they prescribe medicines that are derived from food products, yet until recently they all swore that except for 'deficiency diseases' what you ate was completely irrellevant. In so doing, they arbitrarily dismissed four millenia of careful nutritional observation including the scientific basis for the very drugs they prescribe. Pennecillin - the drug that made modern medicine respectable is derived from a mold on cheese.

Medicine really took off with the introduction of penecillin in the mid-twentieth century. Before that, much of medicine was about hacking off a lim . Or describing the cause of death. Or bloodletting. Or occasionally diminishing pain. After penecillin, physicians could actually cure diseases. Penecillin jump-started the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry took as a premise that organic molecules could be used to cure diseases and ameliorate problemmatic symptoms. And one of the main places pharmaceutical researchers would look first for theraputic chemicals was nature. After all, opioids such as codeine and morphine and antibiotics such as penecillin were derived from food plants. Penecillin is the mold that makes blue cheese blue. And today most of medical practice is about finding the right chemical substance to give a patient. It still depends highly on identifying naturally occurring molecules in plants and foods.

Despite this history physicians believed from the 1940s until very recently that except for identified nutrients in foods i.e. 12 essential vitamins and minerals, foods contain no ingredients that could either adversely or beneficially affect health. It is only the tiny handful of twelve or so essential vitamins or minerals for which European scientists in the ninteenth century identified corresponding deficiency diseases that can influence health.

Yet each decade we discover one or two classes of chemical compounds in foods that can play a crucial role in preventing diseases. In the 1990's, for instance, it was antioxidants. Today it is flavinoids and omega 3 oils. There might be hundreds or thousands of classes of chemical compounds with distinct beneficial effects. And medical science officially denies them any role in health or nutrition - at least not until they are isolated and patented as a cure for some malady. So much for medical science in the service of nutritional health. Or nutrition in the service of public health. Individually, doctors may 'do no harm' but collectively, the notion that what you swallow has not effect on your health unless it is patented and presecribed by a doctor has done untold harm.

People all over the world have, for centuries, been taking note of how what we eat affects who we are and what our health is. People did it long before Hippocrates lived twenty five hundred years ago. And they've done it ever since. These observations have formed the models that people follow when they eat according to the macrobiotic method or the vegetarian method or when people cut out rice, potatoes and pastry to lose weight as they did in ninteenth century Europe. People did these things, usually, because decades, centuries, or millenia of observations suggested benefits to these methods. This is scientifically valid; it is technologically correct. In the 1950's American idiots in white lab coats came along and proclaimed that anything they had not discovered was not scientific because, well, they were scientists and nobody else was. To view an assertion that has not been tested in a nationwide double-blind study with a certain detatchment or skepticism is one thing. But to deny any practice based on four millenia of observation is not just arrogant, it is downright unscientific. Most of the health and nutritional thought we Americans inherit today is courteousy of these same idiots in white lab coats. (We don't necessarily mean to claim that any one was an idiot, just that collectively they acted in a way that is idiotic - systematically denying the validity of other groups' practice without testing to see whether there might be some.)

Technology is the application of science to solve a real world problem. But in America we have virtually no nutrional technology because we have so darn few good scientific models of nutrition because doctors assume that except for deficiency disease, food is irrelevant. In this respect and in the establishment of treatment protocols, medicine and nutrition in America are still mostly witchcraft. The reason a procedure is done is because that is the 'standard thing' to do. There has recently been a push to remove witchcraft from medical protocols, but in the sphere of nutrition the idea is 'let them eat cake.'

The same thing happens too frequently in engineering 'build per spec' and nobody cares why the specifaction says what it does. In America, orthodoxy matters; standardization matters. Science does not. So if some 'crackpot' has an idea about diet and nutrition and has a shred of supportive observational evidence that this idea might work, he is probably ahead of the average twentieth century medical doctor in terms of good science. And that means that if you think his idea applies to you, you might consider trying it. A lot of times it will work. Some of the times it will work for a reason that has nothing to do with the model proposed by the 'crackpot.' Atkins, for instance, was loathed and lampooned by the standard medical profession, not because his diet did not work - lots of the very doctors who hated him lost weight on it - but because it did and he made money on it. Other diets based on controlling carbohydrate intake have eclipsed it, but Atkins was using advice Brillat Savarin had written over a century earlier. Carbohydrate control is a critical factor in weight control among the sedentary.

On the plus side, the world of science has just recently started to really try to come to grips with the gaping chasms in understanding left by those idiots. We are learning that there is some fundamental governing model that explains most of the nutritional ideas that have withstood the test of time. And we are discovering that most of the 'scientific' ideas about nutrition invented in the twentieth century are not believable enough to make good science fiction. Another century or two and perhaps we will understand what, exactly, a macrobiotic diet has to offer. Or what a rotaiton diet has to offer. Or what an Atkins diet has to offer. All of these diets posit a mechanism for their success. And all succeed for some people. We will know the molecular mechanisms by which their benefits accrue. In the mean time, people with dietary or nutritional problems should try some of the 'odd' models that are out there. There's a pretty good chance one of them fits.

So far, we have been describing a situation of benign neglect of staggering proportions. But the picture might be worse than this. The people who define what we are to eat are the governmental agencies tied most closely to agribusiness. The real money in agribusiness today happens to be in transforming grain products into the food we eat. The dairy and cattlemen have quite a bit of political clout. The poor guys who grow asparagus and broccoli for a living - well most of them live and vote in Mexico. Not much political pull there. So the situation is that the science of human nutrition is just about where it was a century ago when vitamin deficiencies were identified by European physicians. Except that it is made worse because of the whole 'pasta is good' thing that blew in with the first food pyramid. Rules and practices produced by a group of government officials whose political ties are to agribusiness (grain, meat, dairy) . With the history of scientists (who may or may not have been good scientists to begin with) at places like NIH and FDA making most of their incomes 'consulting' on the side for agribusiness, is it any wonder that the governmental recommendations miss the mark?

Copyright S.R. Brubaker 2002 - 2006.