Book Review: Skinny Bitch

When a book bears a title such as this one has, the prospective reader is naturally caught off guard. Is this an angry novel? Someone with a grudge against healthy people? A satire? Also - could this be a book a man might read without being looked at strangely?

I would never have picked up this book without having first had a recommendation from my sister in law. Having read the book, though, I must say I'm glad it found it's way on my reading list. Yes, the book is peppered heavily with coarse language, often with negative, bald insults, but it's honest and stimulating.

The main premise of the book is that we should all eat meat and dairy-free diets with no refined sugars. They mean well, and if we all followed their advice, we'd all probably live much longer, happier lives, on average. Their arguments against meat and dairy consumption feel somewhat questionable to me considering other things I've read, but they do put forth research citations (not as rigorous on their face as the citations I've seen in other pro-meat books, such as "Real Food"). Nonetheless, the content is very thought-provoking.

I whole-heartedly support their chapter on distrusting government oversight of our food supply. My hat's off to them for really attempting to challenge reader's conceptions of their "safe" food supply. I really think Ms. Freedman and Barnouin have strong and mostly correct convictions, and on this topic they strike a chord with me.

Freedman and Barnouin are even courageous enough to scribe a brief chapter on healthy bowel movements, or "Pooping" as they've titled the chapter. I give credit here for a mainstream book taking on such a vital aspect of our bodies and one which a lesser pair of authors would have veered clear of.

Just for fun, and to illustrate a point about the writing style, let me share with you a sampling of ways Freedman and Barnouin refer to the act of moving one's bowels:

- Pooping
- Pinch a loaf
- Lay cable
- Drop the kids off at the pool
- Depositing six-inchers
- Deuce dropping

You get the picture.

I take umbrage with the author's use of negative language, which at times feels insulting and superior. This seems unhelpful to me. Strangely, they spend an entire chapter to thinking positively about one's efforts at diet change. It reads earnestly, though.

This is a book clearly directed at women, but anyone can learn from what Freedman and Barnouin have to say. If you had to follow just one school of thought on diet, this wouldn't be a half bad approach.

To Meat or Not To Meat

VS.



I started this post hoping to settle the dispute forever one way or the other: Ethics of animal consumption aside, can eating meat be as healthy, or even healthier, than a vegetarian diet?

Naturally, I scoured the internet for information to point me to the answer. The problem is (a) to really answer this question, serious scientific inquiry is necessary (b) much of the research may not be sound and (c) I don't have the time to sift the scientific wheat from the chaff, to use an agricultural analogy.

Some of what I expected to find related to humans' ability to handle meat biologically. I found disagreement on this issue. And even if we are able to merely process it, is eating meat detrimental to our bodies? There wasn't a lot out there, backed by science, to suggest that eating meat HAS to be a bad thing.

Although some would disagree, I am going to take it as fact that industrially produced meat sources (e.g., grain and anti-biotic fed beef from packed feedlots) are less desirable for our bodies and our environment than pastured animals.

Taking the above for given, I don't find the evidence particularly compelling either in favor of vegetarianism or meat consumption. If one does choose to eat meat, it seems that eating naturally-raised meat in moderation, cooked without heavy browning over high heat, and accompanied by high levels of physical exertion (exercise) would be required. I am struggling to find solid, science-backed information to support that eating meat responsibly (as described above) will shorten your life or lower its quality. My guess is that a "flexitarian" diet is the most healthful.

Here's some of what I found:

Here is an excellent webpage by westonaprice.org, with research citations, debunking myths of a meat-free diet.

Here's an argument supporting that it's natural for us to eat meat, from straightdope.com.

A quote from emagazine.com:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren’t physiologically designed to eat meat. “I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn’t take a genius to see where humans line up,” says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

I recommend an excellent book, Real Food, which makes the case in favor of meat and dairy products (from naturally raised animals). The book cites many scientific research sources and I feel it's very credible.

From National Geographic: Humans evolved not only to eat meat, but to eat cooked meat. This explains our smaller mouth structures and lack of typical carnivore's teeth, which is often cited by anti-meat folks to support their case.

A note on my problem with the scientific research:

Scientific studies can be very deceptive if you do not understand the method that was used to gather the data and which factors were accounted for in the research. Did the study account for how the meat was cooked? Did the meat come from pastured animals spared of unnatural levels of anti-biotics and other chemicals? Was the meat unadulterated or was it processed into lunch meat or some other concoction? Were lifestyle factors accounted for, such as whether the subjects smoked or exercised. What was the measure of success? Long life? Cholesterol levels? Quality of life? Who paid for the study? Argghhh....

For those who argue that prehisoric man ate meat, it's possible that our ancestors merely died from other causes (sabre-toothed tiger, influenza, angry neighboring tribe) before the ill effects of meat consumption were able to strike them down. It's also possible that our bodies aren't even designed to last us far past age 40 anyway.

Perhaps it has not been our eating of meat that has caused the purported increase in heart disease and cancer, but instead our choice of industrially produced meat and lack of the strenuous physical exertion our ancestors were required to engage in to survive.

The debate goes on...

If you have any strong evidence either way, please share!