It was a very interesting essay, and has changed my outlook on
things. I'm also inspired to change my diet, even though I'm no
"typical American eater" either.

It really answers my question, which I'd asked for the longest time to
no real answer, why all these protein shakes and vitamin pills, if
they really are "food," can be taken *as* food, in lieu of other
food. The article really answered that for me when it noted that
isolating nutrients from their naturally-occuring whole food contexts
has not been successful, particularly in the case of anti-oxidants.

As for a "biologically diverse" diet, well, the South Chinese are
known for their no-holds-barred culinary habits. The joke, told by
North Chinese, is that they eat anything with four legs except tables
and chairs. I'd be very curious as to a study of their health...but
such a study would probably be impossible to conduct, given the
difficulties in controlling for environmental and lifestyle factors
there....



On Jan 31, 3:05 pm, "Butcher" > wrote:
> A very long read, but very well-done. The author approaches the
> Western diet and the history of how it evolved (or devolved?) in a
> very compelling, common sense way. I truly can't disagree with what
> he's saying. Although I don't see my eating habits as typically-
> American, I'm still inspired to change my diet even more to reflect
> what he's advocating - kind of a get-back-to-nature-don't-believe-the-
> nutritional-marketing-bullshit approach.
>
> One of the most interesting lines:
>
> "Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too.
> The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket
> obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet
> is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to
> tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant
> species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops
> account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider
> that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species,
> and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a
> radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter?
> Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100
> different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It's hard to
> believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting
> largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice."
>
> Now that's a nice example/fact that drives the point home.