I thought the book was fine. Yes, I understand the introduction was dull and long, but it actually sums up the book very well. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Throughout the book, he defines nutritionism and what it's done to the western society. He compares our modern lifestyle to more ancient lifestyles or those revolving around nature. He makes it obvious that industries will produce unhealthy foods, with the help of science and journalists, to make money. I believe Pollan holds valid points, with evidence and facts to back him up.
For these reasons I recommend this book to anyone who is looking into changing how they eat. In fact, I may even read his other literature, because if I'm correct, all of his books have a common theme, eating. All of his literature could very well be the key to a new healthier lifestyle, which gives me a reason to support and promote his writing.
I agree Akbar I thought I was a good book and i fon't know why everyone one hates it. I thought it was very informative.
ReplyDeleteAkbar, I have not read _The Omnivore's Dilemma_, but it is on my list and I know a number of people who really enjoyed it. It's a bit more historical and story-oriented than argumentative, and it's longer. And then _Food Rules_ is supposed to be the condensed, practical, part III version of _In Defense of Food_. You have two strong posts here. I like how you look at your feelings about the book in relation to the reactions of your peers, and you use strong verbs (define, compare) to describe the work Pollan does in IDOF. Your free post is also engaging and well-written. Nice work.
ReplyDelete