I just finished reading Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. I’ve been thinking about food a lot lately, and rather than trying to write one monolithic post I am going to split up my thoughts into chunks. Today I’ll talk about some of the material and ideas that got me thinking about food.

It started when I read an article on the CRON (Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition) diet in the New York Magazine. (See also a similar article from Slate). CRON is based on a number of research studies that have shown that mice eating calorie restricted diets live significantly longer than mice who don’t. While similar effects have been observed for several other species, the jury is still out on whether humans would see similar benefits from restrictive diets (See this NYT article for an overview of recent research). There is some evidence that primates who are on a CR diet are healthier than those who aren’t, but critics argue that humans are different because we already live extended lives due to modern medicine. The control mice in at least some of the tests were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, and many gorged themselves to ill-health. Of even more concern are the psychological effects reported by humans attempting CR diets. Many end up with unhealthy fixations on food, and the prospect of essentially starving yourself seems singularly unappealing.

While I am skeptical of the life-extension claims made by CR-supporters, I am interested in the “ON” part of the “CRON” diet. The basic premise is that there are some foods that are especially nutritious per calorie, and that by eating these foods one can get a balanced diet without overeating. I should point out here that I enjoy eating a great deal and I’m not about to go on a super-restrictive diet for vague promises of better health, but I do think that there is something to be said for eating more consciously. After all, I don’t smoke because it seems silly to intentionally do something to harm myself, but what is the movie Super Size Me if not evidence that eating a Big Mac is just another form of self harm. (Though, to be fair, recent studies have brought the movie’s claims into question). Clearly there is a difference in degree, but if I can make small changes in my diet that improve my overall health, isn’t it worth it?

I’m clearly not the only person thinking about these issues, and I’ve read some interesting discussions online. One post I found particularly thought provoking was “Why Can’t We Make Bachelor Chow a Reality” at evsh.net (see also part 2). “Bachelor chow,” in this case, is a hypothetical foodstuff that can be eaten everyday and would provide all essential calories and nutrients. (For another take, see also Scott Adam’s failed Dilberito). As I’ve said, I enjoy eating too much to have the same thing at every meal, but article is interesting because of its engineering-like approach to food. At some level eating well simply means balancing an equation involving calories, nutrients, and exercise, and this is an appealing prospect to a scientist. The problem is, of course, that it’s not clear exactly which nutrients we need, and conflicting studies are released almost daily. Food in a pill still seems like a ways off (thank goodness), but this engineering approach to food seems to stand at the heart of the conflict surrounding eating today.

In any case, it was mostly nutrition that inspired me to read Pollan’s book, but I ended up learning more about the food and agricultural industries in this country, and that raises a whole new set of issues.

More later…