Reddit Reddit reviews The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

We found 51 Reddit comments about The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Gastronomy History
Cooking Education & Reference
Cookbooks, Food & Wine
The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
ISBN13: 9780143038580
Check price on Amazon

51 Reddit comments about The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals:

u/GentleMareFucker · 27 pointsr/aww

That is actually true, because happy = it grew up like a chicken should, the right food and freedom to move and have social chicken interactions. Makes for much better meat. These guys, made famous by the hugely successful book "The Omnivores Dilemma", use that simple truth for their commercial advantage.

u/rootone · 21 pointsr/TrueReddit

Biggest change you can make is stop supporting animal agriculture. This outweighs all transportation greenhouse gas effects including freight shipment by sea.

Beef is really the problem with the combined deforestation of grazing lands and land for planting feed crops. Plus the methane emissions, run off, and fresh water consumption for feed plants.

That pound of beef you buy for 1.99 in the US has huge externalized costs.

Fun fact, there are currently 99 billion domesticated animals, and the mass of humans and our domesticated animals makes up 99% of animal life biome on the planet.

Limit animal protein and eat close to the source and both you and the planet will benefit immensely.


The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret

The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet Weight Loss and Long-Term Health

u/tiffums · 18 pointsr/trees

You rang?

I haven't read the book, but I've heard a couple interviews with the author through my various foodie podcasts. He seems cool, and he made bananas seem downright fascinating the entire time he was speaking.

Edit: I have read and would heartily recommend The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan if you're even a little interested in the genetic, behavioral, and political! manipulation of our food. Corn, in particular, as it's the backbone of the American food industry, but he covers a lot of ground. It's really eye-opening. Do recommend. (And any half-decent American library will have it, so awesome and free.)

u/jeff303 · 17 pointsr/business

Good article on a very important subject. For a lot more information on these topics check out Michael Pollan's books (particularly The Omnivore's Dilemma) and the documentary Food, Inc..

The good news is a solution exists that will still allow us to eat our bacon, but it's going to require breaking down the current industrial food system first. And for those of us with the income and means to start buying quality products (including meat) from our local farmers.

u/sonar_un · 15 pointsr/environment

They reference Michael Pollan "In Defense of Food" in the article. I am currently reading another book by Michael Pollan called "Omnivore's Dilema" which is an incredible book on the history and techniques used by modern farmers, both industrial and organic.

This guy knows what he is talking about. I really recommend the read if you are interested in where your food comes from, which I believe everyone should know.

u/tzdk · 12 pointsr/fatlogic

The Omnivore's Dilemma is another good one about how agriculture/food has changed since WWII.

u/Kimos · 7 pointsr/

I don't even know where to start...

  • Organic food is expensive because it shows the real cost of producing food without using chemicals and fertilizers to cut corners.
  • Organic food is smaller because it reflects a more realistic variation in fruit and vegetables. Standard produce is selectively bread and/or genetically modified for size and yield, not for nutritional content or taste or anything else. Just grow bigger, faster, so it can be sold for less while keeping profits up.
  • Genetic modification is not the solution. It is in fact what causes so many of the "problems" traditional farms have. Growing crops in monocultures makes them extremely susceptible to pests since it's an extremely unnatural way for plants to grow. Further genetic modification introduces more weaknesses we don't understand into a system that could support its self very well before humans came in and tried to play $DIETY.

    If you're up for it, read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. A great read that explains all of this and much more.
u/WRT · 6 pointsr/science

Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma." The corn fed, hormone treated meat we get from grocery stores is hardly better than poison. And as usual, as with HFCS, it's the government's fault (just in case you don't know, US companies use HFCS because it's cheaper than sugar as a result of the sugar lobby's efforts to have government make it artificially more expensive).

As for grass-fed beef, Here's a taste of its benefits (not from the book):

"Real beef, that is to say grass-fed beef, is a bona fide health food. It's packed with high quality protein, omega-3s, and even conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). It's also low in the things that you need less of: saturated fat and omega-6s. And it's delicious.

The corn-fed crap they sell in the grocery store is not real beef. It's poison that looks and tastes sort of like beef. The problem is corn. And as you might suspect, the government is behind it.

Cattle are superbly adapted to thrive on high-cellulose foods like grass. That's why they're called herbivores ("grass eaters"). When you feed cattle a diet based on corn, soybeans, and other grains, they gets fat and sickly, just like people. The meat becomes loaded with pro-inflammatory omega-6s and saturated fat; the anti-inflammatory omega-3s are practically nonexistent.

In an actual free market economy, only an idiot would grow corn, because it costs about a dollar more to produce a bushel of corn than the corn is worth. And you can't eat debt. However, in our country, the government pays farmers to raise corn that the market doesn't want. These subsidies have created a vast surplus of corn, which is sold to feedlots and force-fed to obese couch-potato cows.

It takes about 16 pounds of corn and soy to make just onepound of grain-fed beef. Multiply that by the thousands of tons of grain fed beef produced annually in this country. Under normal supply and demand, corn-fed beef wouldn't exist: it's only possible (by which we mean "profitable") because of about 5 billion dollars a year in government subsidies.

Simply stated, the government uses your tax dollars to pay off farmers and cattle growers who produce inferior food that in fact poisons you. Think about that on April 15."

BTW, he's right about the beef tasting significantly better. I buy grass-fed from the farmer's market every week, but last weekend I was ridiculously hungover on Saturday morning and decided that I didn't feel like going. So I went back to grocery-store beef for the first time in about 5 months and I could barely choke it down. It was disgusting. I almost puked afterwards. Lesson learned.

u/freemarketmyass · 6 pointsr/Economics

Joel Salatin (the author) is a bit of a (admitted) nut job though. A lifetime of being the voice in the wilderness will do that to you.

I've seen him speak, and he's very persuasive. When he mentioned that raising animals on pasture produces meat/dairy with the optimal omega-3/6 balance for human health, it made my head pop.

For more on the benefits of traditional, natural ways of cooking, growing crops & raising animals, check out Michael Pollan's books: Omnivore's Dilemna and In Defense of Food.

These books have literally changed my life and my relationship to food - it's been a wonderful, rewarding experience.

u/27182818284 · 6 pointsr/environment

seconding this but also pointing out the book that came out before King Corn called The Omnivore's Dilemma

Which also gets into our heavy dependence on corn and corn-fed beef.

u/[deleted] · 5 pointsr/ArtisanVideos

People should know that meat is animals. If you cant stomach seeing an animal slaughtered, I dont think you should eat meat from that animal.


u/SaroDarksbane · 5 pointsr/btc

I kinda feel like you lost the plot of this conversation:
You: "We need to pay taxes so the government can protect us from evil corporations."
Me: "But the government sends your taxes straight to the pockets of the evil corporations and directly creates the problems you're complaining about."
You: "Well, that's not the government's fault."

How do you square those two beliefs?

Still, you did ask for sources, so here's a few (plus an upvote):

  1. This one is not primarily about the government's role in the food industry, but you can see the problems it creates woven throughout: The Ominivore's Dilemma
  2. A podcast episode specifically about the Wholesome Meat Act, from the Tom Woods Show: Ep. 656 How the Wholesome Meat Act Gives Us Less Wholesome Meat
  3. A book I highly recommend that attempts to explain, from a practical/pragmatic standpoint, why nearly everything the government does is either useless or outright counterproductive to its stated goals: The Machinery of Freedom
u/relevant-_-username · 4 pointsr/loseit

You might be interested in reading In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan. Also, The Omnivore's Dilemma, by the same author. Both books are similar, though I find the latter to be a little more preachy. In either case, there's great information about the politics and marketing of processed food, the Western Diet, and the rise of obesity. In Defense of Food was an eye opener for me.

u/jeffkolez · 4 pointsr/Frugal

Grass fed tastes like beef is supposed to taste. Corn fed tastes weird.

Corn fed beef being as healthy for you as grain is as disputed as climate change. Here's some reading for you. I'll boil it down; cows evolved eating grass and we've been feeding them corn which causes all sorts of digestion problems, so we shoot them full of antibiotics and hormones to help them grow more quickly.

It's like you only eating popcorn when you evolved for a varied diet of vegetables meat and some fruit then needing to take all sorts of drugs to stay 'healthy'. How healthy would you be? Wouldn't it be better in the long run to eat right?

Watch this TED talk from a farmer who raises chickens fed grubs and bugs instead of grain.

u/thrwy321d · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

I think he gets the extreme importance of king corn.

When i read his book "The omnivores dilema",

he spends a LOT of time going over corn's gigantic use levels in his books. from the difference between field corn and sweet corn to its use in tremendous amount of products and fast food to its use in additives. And then he also delves into feedlots and the massive corn use there.

he's very aware of the massive use of it currently.

you are right in that he seems stymied by what to do about that fact (If one considers current huge corn usage levels to be a "problem")

edit: It looks like that book is a little older though, so I might be assuming he still holds the same opinions that he did when he wrote that in 2007. He could possibly be more strident about things now and Im just not aware of his updated position.

u/yay_icade_support · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Corn subsidies and a minimum wage that isn't liveable. Have a watch of Food Inc. and a read (or listen to) The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.

u/Tangurena · 2 pointsr/Economics

A good (out of print) book that discusses some this is Altered Harvests.

Why the US subsidizes corn:

In the mid 1960s, seed corn (called maize in Europe) producers used Texas Male Sterile Cytoplasm because it meant that the tassles (male flowers at the top of the corn plant - the ear of corn is the female flower) did not need to be cut off. Because all the hybrid corn seed used TMSC, any disease that affects one plant affected every plant. So by 1970, all of the hybrid seed corn (about 80% of all corn planted in the US) in the US used TMSC. A blight spread across the US and if the weather didn't break, it was a couple weeks from destroying 80% of the US corn crop - instead of the 20% that it actually destroyed.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the government had no problem dealing with protesting hippies and anti war protesters. They knew how to handle them by hiring thugs to beat them up. But the riots, protests and marches by farmers and housewives? That freaked the Nixon administration like LSD in their coffee. By the next growing season there were massive subsidies that made corn extremely cheap, as well as programs to plant every inch of dirt: where farmers were planting fence to fence, now they were paid to dig up fences and plant road to road.

With such massive subsidies for corn, it became a very cheap item to use for producing other products. Companies like Archer Daniels Midland thrived on the subsidies. Products like High Fructose Corn Syrup would never have spread across the market without those subsidies.

Pollan's book Omnivore's Dilemma describe how everything in the supermarket is made from corn these days. With probably only the oil and fish at the supermarket not using some form of corn during their production.

u/mementomary · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

I pretty much only read non-fiction, so I'm all about books that are educational but also interesting :) I'm not sure what your educational background is, so depending on how interested you are in particular subjects, I have many recommendations.

Naked Statistics and Nate Silver's Book are both good!

Feeling Good is THE book on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.

The Omnivore's Dilemma is good, as is Eating Animals (granted, Eating Animals is aimed at a particular type of eating)

Guns, Germs and Steel is very good.

I also very much enjoyed The Immortal Live of Henrietta Lacks, as well as Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman :)

edit to add: Chris Hadfield's Book which I haven't received yet but it's going to be amazing.

u/moyerma · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

I can recommend Michael Pollan's books:

  • The Omnivore's Dilemma
  • In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

    He talks about why a lot of current nutritional science is flawed (poor data, biased funding, etc...) and concludes that while humans can survive and thrive on a wide variety of diets, the modern western diet is not one of them. His advice boils down to "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

    It's a good read because he's not really trying to push any one particular diet. The books are more concerned with how and why the western diet and modern nutritional science got to be the way they are.
u/misplaced_my_pants · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

I agree that we probably are coming from different sets of values, but I believe there is enough of an overlap for us to make headway. But there's only so much I can try to communicate through typed comments on reddit, so this will be my last post.

> but this is still based on a meat-inclusive diet so my point still stands that meat eating has been historically important to humanity.

The fact that it was historically important in no way justifies the continued eating of meat.

If we're talking about people in third world environments, of course I'm not going to deny them a potential food source. If this is about starvation, then it's about food. What you've been reading in my comments has more to do with the ethics of eating meat when there's so much more available to you (i.e. in the first world such as the US).

I think we're on the same page on managed commons. I just wish that the standards they're forced to follow were based on what's ecologically feasible than what the companies controlling food production/catching/distribution think makes a large enough profit. (I'm a capitalist as long as business practices are transparent.) (On another note, you might be interested in Dan Barber's TED talk for an idea on sustainable fishing practices. It's the sort of thing I think we're going to have to move towards.)

Clearly, our views on the nature of both human and animal rights are different. If you'd like to get a better look into the reasoning behind my thinking, these two books really made me change the way I view how humans produce and consume food. Give them a read if you're interested. They'll make much more articulate arguments than I'm capable of making.

Also, if you get a chance, I highly recommend this book if you're interested in global poverty. It blew my mind.

u/cellfire · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

pick up a copy of "the omnivore's dilemma"... you'll dig it and it will help answer a lot of your questions.

u/ornryactor · 2 pointsr/AskFoodHistorians


  • Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Cronon, William.

  • Selling 'Em by the Sack: White Castle and the Creation of American Food. Hogan, David Gerard.

  • Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet. Levenstein, Harvey.

  • The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Pollan, Michael.

  • Manifestos on the Future of Food and Seed. Shiva, Vandana et al.

  • The Jungle. Sinclair, Upton.

  • Banana Cultures: Agriculture, Consumption, and Environmental Change in Honduras & the United States. Soluri, John.

  • The Fruits of Natural Advantage: Making the Industrial Countryside in California. Stoll, Steven.

  • Corn and Capitalism: How a Botanical Bastard Grew to Global Dominance. Warman, Arturo.

    Very cool to see the actual course listing information. I'd forgotten what it was like to flip through an actual paper course catalog with that kind of stuff in it. Thank god for the internet.

    Also, you helped me figure out what book I was trying to remember in this comment! It was The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan. IIRC, it was an awesome concept and 75% of it was an absolutely fantastic read, but one of the sections (maybe the third one?) was bit uninspired. Still overall worth the read, for sure, just be prepared to slog through one section. (And don't skip it, because what it discusses is still relevant to the final section, even if it's not as entertaining as the rest of the book.) It's worth it in particular for anybody living in an industrialized "modern" nation; it provides some of the come-to-Jesus moments that we all need to hear periodically. It's not on the level of Fast Food Nation in that regard (which is required reading for every American and Canadian, as far as I'm concerned), but still.

    EDIT: And that helped me remember another book I've heard recommended, also by Michael Pollan: In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto.

    You're on a roll, friend.
u/SlothMold · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

A lot of the better-researched/possible in the next 5 years stuff will have "speculative fiction" tacked on as a label instead of sci-fi. Just an observation.

In terms of very readable science nonfiction, you might try The Poisoner's Handbook, which is told in anecdotes about murder cases and the development of modern forensics in New York or Mary Roach's humorous essay collections in Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void, and others. The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan was also quite readable and well-researched (about agrobusiness), but his other books get overly preachy, I think.

The Best Science and Nature anthologies are a good starting point when you're looking for new authors you click with too.

u/dbtc · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Read this book.

u/Rusty-Shackleford · 2 pointsr/AskReddit
u/MarcoVincenzo · 2 pointsr/atheism

I switched over to free range after reading Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma.

The main problem is price. Boutique butchers (if you can even find them locally) are very expensive and not all ranchers can do delivery. And, if you can find a rancher who'll deliver (or ship) you'll probably have to buy in relatively large quantities in order to make the delivery costs "reasonable" once they're averaged over the amount of meat you've bought.

On the plus side: free range beef tastes a hell of a lot better than the corn fed cows confined to feed lots.

u/PostalAlbatross · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

There are plenty of books out there now that touch on this topic, but you should start with The Omnivore's Dilemma if this is a subject that is interesting to you. Really good read.

Edit: link

u/rcut · 1 pointr/politics

That article might have been an excerpt from The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

u/useless_idiot · 1 pointr/politics

Be sure and check out these also:

King Korn

Omnivore's Dilemma

u/snark · 1 pointr/politics

Exactly. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It's not an exaggeration to say it completely changed the way I eat. I didn't give up meat but I will only eat grass-fed, free range meat (hormone free, etc.). And I do eat a LOT less of it.

Factory farming and the USDA's complicity therein is a national disgrace. No other country has commoditized its food chain like the U.S.

u/sunshineshazam · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I think it is everywhere in our food: King Corn and The Omnivore's Dilemma

edited for clarity

u/_Loch_Ness_Monster__ · 1 pointr/veganbookclub
u/Gov_LePetomaine · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

The Omnivore's Dilemama. Salt. Both are great reads.

u/half_dozen_cats · 1 pointr/relationships

I know my comments are going to get buried under all the other ones. I think that's a good sign because you have obviously tapped into a very real and significant issue.

I was a picky eater, by most standards I still am. I didn't try a green pepper until I was 26 because my mom worked a full time job and I was alone at home with nothing but a microwave. When I met my gf/wife I lived on Domino's (they had a special named after me :( ) and bagged salad.

15 years later I now eat a lot more variety and make sure to include veggies with every dinner/breakfast for a more balanced diet. I can eat most anything raw but cooked veggies send me heading for the hills (there is a video of my trying cooked broccoli trying not to wretch).

Here's my point...I came around because as I read and learned more I knew I was basically poisoning myself with crap processed food that was high in fat and salt (BLISS POINTS!) I eat a lot better now and if my wife who is a SAHM puts food in front of me I damn well eat it. ;)

In reference to kids try this. Go out and catch a possum then strap it into a high chair and try to feed it mushed peas for a while. Kids are already hard enough to feed without a united front (not to mention the concerns with in utero...crap in crap out). My kids will eat anything because we don't make faces or act up in front of them if we don't like it. Hell my wife is Vegan but still makes meat for all of us and she doesn't say jack shit about it.

My point is I think your concern is valid. I think if she at least showed signs of being open to change you'd probably feel differently. I too had a great metabolism at 25...not so much now at 40. Plus again all that processed food is basically a death sentence.

These books are good reading IMHO:

u/Terra_Ursidae · 1 pointr/funny

Yes, it's very "cheap" to feed livestock corn when we are spending billions of dollars every year subsidizing it. At least it looks cheap. This is a problem that has more external costs than are really accounted for. Cows fed on grains like corn shed harmful strains of E. Coli on a very large magnitude. The environmental impact of our livestock practices is phenomenal. Yes it would monetarily cost a bit more to produce crops and livestock in a responsible and sustainable way, but it would cut down on external costs that aren't normally taken into account when we purchase a burger at a local restaurant.

It discusses how much ethanol should cost to give the same cost per mile, but that's an old article. I merely posted it to make the point that their is less energy in ethanol, so you would have to use more of it to get the same desired effect. Honestly with how politicized ethanol has become I shy away from it (as a research subject). Personally I see it as a way to use the excess ridiculous amounts of corn we produce every year and to try and sway political support. But it's a skewed argument if you don't take into account the amount of money we spend on ag subsidies to produce the corn which is then mixed in with gasoline. It's a convoluted subject.

Not true. Our subsidies actually push the price of corn below the amount it actually takes to produce corn. No one can compete with that. If we didn't subsidize our agriculture than all farmers would be more or less on an even playing field (more or less depending on space for crops, technology of farm equipment etc.). Here is a video of an interview with a gentlemen who conducted a study on the very subject.

I'm not saying we should forgo advancement, but stripping away their ability to feed themselves (as a country) is not going to promote advancement. And since we are in a global economy, the price we set for corn has an effect all over the globe. Not just Mexico. No one can compete with artificial prices that are lower than production costs.

McDonald's is just an example. What I'm saying is our food isn't as cheap as we are led to believe. The vast majority of boxed/prepared foods in the middle isles of the grocery store have some form of corn in them. Here is a list of all the different kinds of corn products we make with corn. So all of these types of food look cheap, but we pay for them not only at the counter, but through our taxes and through the external costs associated with our agricultural and livestock practices. I guess why I brought up McDonald's is because it seems extremely cheap to go get a burger, fries, and drink for like $3 (dollar menu). But every part of that meal is saturated in corn products in one form or another. If you are interested in this subject I would recommend reading The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. He attempts to trace the origins of the food we eat and continually finds himself drawing a line back to some corn field in the mid west.

I would be all for agricultural policies that work to feed malnourished people across the globe, or to build sustainable practices that enrich rather than deplete the land, but the current system mostly works to make more money. That's not always a bad thing, but the costs of our current system far outweigh any benefits to our society as a whole.

u/sleepyfishes · 1 pointr/Permaculture

Have you read a book called The Omnivore's Dilemma ? If not, i think it would help you in this project. In it there is a section that talks about Polyface farm, a poly culture farm that employs natural symbiotic relationships (between chickens, grass, and cows, for example) that a farmer can use to keep soil healthy, spend less of animal feed, and essentially use the land to its greatest potential. I highly recommend it.

u/rAtheismSelfPostOnly · 1 pointr/INTPBookmarks

Things to Buy

Iraq Research

Congress Related

Health & Exercise
Green Tea

u/tmurph135 · 1 pointr/podcasts

[Health And Fitness: Running] The BibRave Podcast | Episode 27: Weirdest. Half Marathon. Ever



Episode Summary
In Episode 27, Tim and Julia chat about a recent track Half Marathon they both ran. Yup - 52.5 laps, in the rain and cold, and it was awesome (at least Tim thought so. Julia however...).

Then they move to their second favorite subject, food! Tim and Julia talk about foods they are willing to spend more money on for quality, some of the differences between high/low quality foods, and they close with a bunch of useful takeaways on how they shop, plan their meals, and set themselves up to make good decisions. As often as possible... 😇

Episode Show Notes:

u/NGK87 · 1 pointr/crossfit

If you don't want to read much, skip below to #7 and the helpful resources.

Food ("nutrition") sets your performance ("fitness") ceiling. It will define what you can achieve in the gym. If you want better performance, you'll have to eat better first. Period.

  1. Forget calories. They're a giant red herring. In response to your question, others have brought up "calories in, calories out." This is such an oversimplification that's it's basically wrong. 500 doughnut calories =\= 500 sweet potato calories, NOT EVEN CLOSE. The sugar and other refined carbohydrates in a doughnut will break down to glucose very quickly, then spike your blood sugar. Next, insulin response rushes in and causes a few things, the blood sugar gets pulled into cells for use but also gets pulled into fat stores. Insulin promotes development of fat tissue. To simplify: some of the 500 doughnut calories end up used for energy very quickly after you eat it, the rest ends up stored as fat, but you'll absorb all 500 one way or another. Sweet potatoes don't spike your blood sugar because they're digested very slowly. You get a slow steady stream of carbohydrates (blood sugar) to use all day, especially during that workout. So long, in fact that you'll likely end up flushing some of the carbs 500 carbs in that sweet potato down the toilet because it won't stay in your body long enough to fully digest it (thank you dietary fiber.) To simplify, you'll absorb some and what you do absorb, you'll use to your benefit to crush WODs.

  2. Focus instead on macronutrients (protein, carbs, fats). Which brings me to my next point...

  3. You're going to have to "track." That means you're going to have to get a scale and weigh your food as you plate it for your meal.

  4. Meal prep. Get a plan together. Then cook up some food and weigh off into containers. This will help stay on track. This is important because:

  5. It takes about 2 weeks for all the hormonal changes to happen to your body when your start to eat better. That means no cheat meals. Cheat meals are for when you've reached your goals. They bog down your progress. Stay away as long as possible.

  6. Regarding food, you should be buying groceries (veggies and fruit), meat, fish and some dairy. If it comes in packaging, you should probably avoid it (except obvious things like milk has to come in a gallon, duh). MOST IMPORTANTLY: NO REFINED CARBOHYDRATES. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS. If it's made with bleached, white flour (often labeled "enriched"), sugar, high fructose corn syrup, rice syrup, agave nectar, rice syrup, and all the other misleading terms, then you simply don't eat it.

  7. If you don't believe me about the above, don't take my word for it, go on YouTube and watch videos with the elite CrossFit athletes and watch what they eat and what their coaches (Ben Bergeron, coach to Katrin davidsdottir and a few other big names) has a bunch of nutrition related videos) tell them to eat. Mimic what they do. They don't eat that way because they're elite, they're elite because they eat that way (and train according obviously).

    Helpful resources:

    In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

    Enter The Zone: A Dietary Road map

    The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

    Edit: spelling typos
u/rockyroadrage · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/SpicyMcHaggis206 · 1 pointr/bodybuilding

> The problem is 1) quantity produced

And that is the crux of the whole argument. Meat is mass produced. If you can get past the ethical implications of killing a living animal to eat when it is not essential to survival, we still consume way too much for our planet to handle. Meat is so cheap because we have found little hacks to raise more animals than is naturally possible and we subsidize and externalize the true cost of factory farming because most people aren't willing to pay $15/lb because they are so far removed from what they are eating.

I think you would really enjoy The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan if you haven't already read it. He is pretty much where you are on the spectrum from SAD and vegan. He addresses and expands on a lot of the points in your post.

u/bluebuckeye · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Dan Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness. I recommend this book to everyone I know. It has changed me for the better in so many ways.

It's cliche but, Michael Pollans In Defense of Food.

Lastly, Janet Fitch White Oleander.

u/cynicalabode · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/dontspamjay · 1 pointr/audiobooks

Ghost in the Wires - The story of famed hacker Kevin Mitnick

Any Mary Roach Book if you like Science

In the Heart of the Sea - The true story behind Moby Dick

The Omnivore's Dilemma - A great walk through our food landscape

Gang Leader for a Day - Behavioral Economist embeds with a Chicago Gang

Shadow Divers - My first audiobook. It's a thriller about a scuba discovery of a Nazi Submarine on the Eastern US coast.

The Devil In The White City - A story about a serial killer at the Chicago World's Fair of 1893

u/DGRWomensCaucus · 1 pointr/DeepGreenResistance

If you are going to critique us, please at least get the facts right.

Deep Green Resistance is an organization founded on radical feminist principles, which includes standing up for the safety of women. The sex industry is both an industrial form of sexual violence against women as well as a being a product that normalizes sexual violence against women, so of course we are anti-porn.

Denouncing porn as a form of violence against women is only a small part of what we do however. We stand against all forms of oppression including racism, imperialism, and patriarchy.

As for diet choices, DGR does not tell anyone what they should eat. It is industrial agriculture that is the problem, not meat eating or veganism or any other form of individual diet. We stand firmly against industrial agriculture, which includes animal feed lots and mono-crop agriculture. To learn more about the problem of agriculture we suggest books such as Against the Grain by Richard Manning and Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

u/omaca · 0 pointsr/AskReddit


OK, so I'm not used to such reasonable and cogent responses on reddit. Especially since I was being all ass-holey. You'll just have to give me a moment or two.


OK, yes I read what you posted. To be honest, it struck me as being a bit defensive (not by you, but by those who have a chip on their shoulder concerning foie gras). I'll be even more honest... I don't like pate, so even if there was a "humane/free-range" variety of foie gras (and in fact, there is ), I still wouldn't eat it. I just listed it because, along with sow-stalls and battery farms, it's considered a poster-child example of the "evils" of modern industrial farming.

I'm an omnivore. I eat meat. I actually often consider going vegetarian for both health reasons (our guts do not handle the huge amount of meat with which we stuff ourselves) and for ethical reasons (I don't really like the idea of killing other creatures). But then I smell the wonderful aroma of a lamb roast, or friend bacon and my resolve crumbles. Therefore, when I do decide to eat meat, I make a personal decision to only eat meat and meat products that I know come from producers that minimize (or at least reduce) the suffering of the animals concerned. I'm sorry, but in all that I have read and heard, foie gras is a product that is produced cruelly. I will concede there is an interesting article here on this argument.

These are the same reasons I don't eat veal (animals forced fed milk; their locomotion reduced; quite often the flesh is dyed etc). It just doesn't appeal to me.

When I eat chicken, I choose free-range. The same for eggs and, most definitely, the same for pork. It's a personal decision and it's not something I crusade about or indeed try to convince other of. As such, I think I'm perfectly entitled to hold such views.

I read The Ethics Of What We Eat and I would recommend it as a reasoned and reasonable approach to this problem. I have heard good things about The Omnivores Dilemma, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Thank you for restoring my faith in reddit a bit.

u/Thants · -1 pointsr/IAmA

I am pretty sure that esdee is just a jackass who thinks s/he knows more than s/he does, but I suspect the point about nutritionists may be that it is a field of science that is still in its infancy.

I came to stop listening to nutritional science thanks to Michael Pollan's books. In Defense of Food is a great book that calls out nutritional science as little more than a ploy to move "value-added foods." It goes into why the science in this case is more a shot in the dark at keeping healthy than is asking your grandmother what to eat. (tl;dr version: Nutriotional science is too reductionist and focuses too much on specific molecules in food rather than heeding conventional wisdom of "if we survived on it for two million years, we should eat it." Pollan sums it up himself in only seven words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Oh, and avoid processed foods.) Great book. If you end up liking it, read Omnivore's Dilemma by Pollan to enter the world of food politics.