What You Eat For Dinner Analysis

870 Words2 Pages

I do agree with Michael Pollan’s view on how deciding what you eat for dinner is a moral dilemma. In the past families usually all had a set dinner time and sat together had ate a homemade meal for the majority of the nights in a week. This is not only healthier but helps pull families closer together. Throughout the years we have moved away from this due to easier made processed food and buys school, work, and life schedules of many americans. So much of this pressure is on the parents and I feel that’s who are faced with this moral dilemma because their children will eat what is provided and how you educate them has a massive effect on what they eat when your not around. What is eaten for dinner is something that takes record of peoples …show more content…

He also emphasizes that you 're body is a machine that properly runs off of real whole food. When looking at this comparison you can relate processed food to gasoline cut with ethanol. Engines are meant to run of 100% gasoline. Overtime when pitting fuel cut with ethanol (processed food) in your engine you are slowly damaging it and not letting it run properly. Culturally people are exposed to traditionally prepared food. In the video, an example of this is in Italy. There diet mainly consists of pasta, meat and bread due to their cultural norms. Eating unhealthy food or even good foods but in unhealthy proportions can have great effects on your health. Science is what essentially provides us with the option of unhealthy processed food. This is obvious when they looked at tribes that still live by the hunter gatherer lifestyle. They lack many of the science and technology that we have but they are very healthy people. Science tries to “help” peoples health but in return its just made it more complicated than it needs to be to eat healthy and give your “machine” with the proper fuel. It’s sad that so much of what around us in developing countries is just a act of making money and not things that are truly done for the good of …show more content…

Not too much. Mostly plants”, is a great way to help people eat healthier. The first portion of the phrase “eat food” refers to the real whole foods that are located on the outside of food markets. The fake food is what fills the aisle of food in the middle of stores. The second part of the phrase, “not too much” makes reference to the amount people eat. For example, the American food proportion are absurd compared to other places in the word. Its become a norm to eat a lot and also quickly. My dad always said “anything in moderation”. Even if your diet mainly consists of healthy food but your eat way too much of it, its almost defeating the purpose. And the last part of the phrase, “mostly plants” is something my mom has always instilled on me. I don 't fully agree with it mainly from an athlete people of view, needing lot of protein to grow and train. But I do think in the long run eating mostly plants with additionally whole foods and meats to obtain what your body needs to grow is the best way to live a healthy life. Even though I feel all parts of his phrase have a great meaning I would have to say “eat food” is the most important. If you are able to eat real food in moderation everything else will

Open Document