Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States on February 27, 2004
This book by Sally Fallon (with Mary Enig, Ph.D.) is an inspiring polemic against both commercial, prepared food trends and some governmental and research leaders who appear to be making recommendations on nutrition under the influence of commercial interests.
My first impression of the book is that it shows exactly how hard nutritional science actually is. The authors are citing hundreds of technical works from both demographic and controlled experiment studies regarding thousands of different food components in their way to painting a complete picture of good nutrition. Their starting point in painting this picture is the common sense assumption that historical, natural diets are invariably more healthy than those laden with commercially processed foods. This assumption is backed up by demographic research done in the first third of the last century. This is the import of the `traditions' in the title.
It turns out that the potential allies of the authors' approach come from such different quarters as the Atkins diet advocates who endorse eating meat, eggs, and other proteins in preference to (processed) carbohydrates and the `Raw Food' wing of the vegetarian / vegan movement. The latter camp would wholeheartedly endorse the authors' issues with eating foods that retain their original enzymes to aid in digestion. I'm sure the vegans and the Atkins camp will not join forces any time soon, but their appearance in the same metaphorical room on the side of the authors' position is another indication of how multi-sided complex scientific theories can become.
I have no facts to confirm or challenge the authors' claim of corruption on the part of some academics in endorsing a nutritional position to back commercial interests. I will only say that it is irrelevant to the central tenant of the book, which in very simple terms is `Eat the way your great grandparents ate'. Some of the more important details are:
1. Avoid processed fats, starches, sugars, and proteins. They are not of no value. They are unhealthy.
2. Eat animal protein and their accompanying fats.
3. Eat whole grain products.
4. Eat foods prepared in such a way that avoids loosing important nutrients.
Almost all of the authors' statements on individual nutritional facts are backed up by published scientific research. One or two or even ten percent of their references may be flawed, but the overall weight of their evidence is truly impressive. The only problem I find in their characterization of the way things are today is in not giving full credit to medical science in lengthening our lifespans through the suppression of infectious diseases. This is likely to be the reason behind the increase in the frequency of deaths by degenerative diseases like cancer and heart disease, not a catastrophic loss of nutritional value in our diets. That is not to say their claims about the drop in the quality of our diet are not true. Always remember that these gals are making a case, they are not simply publishing scientific results.
While I think the authors have a strong case against processed foods, I find it difficult to fully endorse their next step. Their solution takes us close to the land of food extremists such as both traditional vegetarians and the more radical proponents of `raw' diets. What this means is that they raise up foods which are hard to find or difficult to prepare or are prepared in ways unfamiliar to American kitchens. This may not necessarily be a bad thing. It tends to appeal to my `Whole Earth Catalog' mentality of the home-brew lifestyle. But this lifestyle is simply not practical for the millions who work long, stressful hours followed by time devoted to kids and spouses.
My skepticism regarding their solutions is reinforced by some culinary misstatements such as the suggestion to refrigerate tomatoes after they ripen, to not add garlic to hot fat, and that artisinal breads are not good for sandwiches. The second and third statements are refuted daily by traditional Italian cooking practice. Their condemnation of all aluminum cookware and the microwave also seem more extreme than they need be.
What I take from this work is the very cautious and undramatic conclusion that the safest (and most interesting) culinary path lies in the study and emulation of historical diets. This gives a strong theoretical underpinning to my admiration of educators such as Mario Batali and Paula Wolfert who examine and promote historical cuisines based on the `what grows together, goes together'. This could easily be a subtitle of this book. It also gives support to practitioners such as Rachael Ray who promote fast cooking without resorting to overly processed ingredients.
I love a book that pulls together and validates a wide range of (my) opinions. While this book may not always be right, it is supremely valuable in its provocation to thinking. It is also supremely valuable in it's demonstrating the value of some less common foods such as sauerkraut, crème fraiche, and kim chee. This value doubles in that it actually tells you how to make this stuff. Lest it be overlooked, it is important to note that the lions share of the book is a fairly large cookbook of recipes with methods and materials that follow the book's doctrines.
At a list price of $25, the catalogue of vegetables chapter alone is almost worth the price of admission. I'm happy that here, the authors part company with both the advocates of `raw' and the old Adele Davis doctrine of saving veggie cooking water. They reinforce again the conventional wisdom of old school culinary practice which rarely leaves veggies raw. Some raw vegetables contain some bad things and cooking almost always makes the good things more available to digestion.
I recommend this book to everyone as the very next book you need to buy about food.
My first impression of the book is that it shows exactly how hard nutritional science actually is. The authors are citing hundreds of technical works from both demographic and controlled experiment studies regarding thousands of different food components in their way to painting a complete picture of good nutrition. Their starting point in painting this picture is the common sense assumption that historical, natural diets are invariably more healthy than those laden with commercially processed foods. This assumption is backed up by demographic research done in the first third of the last century. This is the import of the `traditions' in the title.
It turns out that the potential allies of the authors' approach come from such different quarters as the Atkins diet advocates who endorse eating meat, eggs, and other proteins in preference to (processed) carbohydrates and the `Raw Food' wing of the vegetarian / vegan movement. The latter camp would wholeheartedly endorse the authors' issues with eating foods that retain their original enzymes to aid in digestion. I'm sure the vegans and the Atkins camp will not join forces any time soon, but their appearance in the same metaphorical room on the side of the authors' position is another indication of how multi-sided complex scientific theories can become.
I have no facts to confirm or challenge the authors' claim of corruption on the part of some academics in endorsing a nutritional position to back commercial interests. I will only say that it is irrelevant to the central tenant of the book, which in very simple terms is `Eat the way your great grandparents ate'. Some of the more important details are:
1. Avoid processed fats, starches, sugars, and proteins. They are not of no value. They are unhealthy.
2. Eat animal protein and their accompanying fats.
3. Eat whole grain products.
4. Eat foods prepared in such a way that avoids loosing important nutrients.
Almost all of the authors' statements on individual nutritional facts are backed up by published scientific research. One or two or even ten percent of their references may be flawed, but the overall weight of their evidence is truly impressive. The only problem I find in their characterization of the way things are today is in not giving full credit to medical science in lengthening our lifespans through the suppression of infectious diseases. This is likely to be the reason behind the increase in the frequency of deaths by degenerative diseases like cancer and heart disease, not a catastrophic loss of nutritional value in our diets. That is not to say their claims about the drop in the quality of our diet are not true. Always remember that these gals are making a case, they are not simply publishing scientific results.
While I think the authors have a strong case against processed foods, I find it difficult to fully endorse their next step. Their solution takes us close to the land of food extremists such as both traditional vegetarians and the more radical proponents of `raw' diets. What this means is that they raise up foods which are hard to find or difficult to prepare or are prepared in ways unfamiliar to American kitchens. This may not necessarily be a bad thing. It tends to appeal to my `Whole Earth Catalog' mentality of the home-brew lifestyle. But this lifestyle is simply not practical for the millions who work long, stressful hours followed by time devoted to kids and spouses.
My skepticism regarding their solutions is reinforced by some culinary misstatements such as the suggestion to refrigerate tomatoes after they ripen, to not add garlic to hot fat, and that artisinal breads are not good for sandwiches. The second and third statements are refuted daily by traditional Italian cooking practice. Their condemnation of all aluminum cookware and the microwave also seem more extreme than they need be.
What I take from this work is the very cautious and undramatic conclusion that the safest (and most interesting) culinary path lies in the study and emulation of historical diets. This gives a strong theoretical underpinning to my admiration of educators such as Mario Batali and Paula Wolfert who examine and promote historical cuisines based on the `what grows together, goes together'. This could easily be a subtitle of this book. It also gives support to practitioners such as Rachael Ray who promote fast cooking without resorting to overly processed ingredients.
I love a book that pulls together and validates a wide range of (my) opinions. While this book may not always be right, it is supremely valuable in its provocation to thinking. It is also supremely valuable in it's demonstrating the value of some less common foods such as sauerkraut, crème fraiche, and kim chee. This value doubles in that it actually tells you how to make this stuff. Lest it be overlooked, it is important to note that the lions share of the book is a fairly large cookbook of recipes with methods and materials that follow the book's doctrines.
At a list price of $25, the catalogue of vegetables chapter alone is almost worth the price of admission. I'm happy that here, the authors part company with both the advocates of `raw' and the old Adele Davis doctrine of saving veggie cooking water. They reinforce again the conventional wisdom of old school culinary practice which rarely leaves veggies raw. Some raw vegetables contain some bad things and cooking almost always makes the good things more available to digestion.
I recommend this book to everyone as the very next book you need to buy about food.
