After reading the Omnivore's Dilemna last year on my triup out to Halifax around this time last year I thought it was probably time to dive into another book on food.  I figure one a year is about the right pace for me.  Although after reading this book there were a few times where I figured that I should probably give up reading about food, outside of just getting a really cook books and going to work learning the dishes and techniques from yester-years cooking.

In Defense of Food is a really interesting look at what nine tenths of the food in the grocery store is today and how we've been encouraged to give up the age old habit of cooking with raw food in favour of just warming up some pre-prepared meals in the microwave and calling it dinner. One of the central tenets of the book is that when reductionist science got applied to the food we eat, they succeeded in breaking it down into a series of bits and pieces called Nutrients and everyone was really happy. Because you could focus on the nutrients and there were guidelines that indicted that if you just got the correct amount of nutrients and you would be healthy.  Unfortunately, the first pass of reductionist science missed spotting that viatmins were an important part of ones diet, and consequently some of the initial experiments with food science had some pretty bad results.  How bad? Try baby food without vitamins.  That's not good.

The book moves on to highlight a short history of nutritionist thought since it's inception.  How the sweeping tide of current nutrionist science has painted one nutrient the bad guy and then shifted focus to another in the hopes of getting closer to keeping us healthy and in the consequently, helping creating processed food that does in fact make us healthy.  There's definitely a link being drawn between, the people creating processed food and the folks who are doing the studies to determine what is healthy.  If I understood correctly, one of the points which Pollan strives to make is that the science's understanding of what makes a body healthy is incomplete and the body has worked long and hard to deal effectively with the diet that had developed over centuries before we started processing food and breaking down and remodelling our foods after the current desires and fashions.  In the face of this incomplete understanding of food and how it interacts with our bodies we are better off to trust in the food culture that has been developed over the centuries.

In Defense of Food turns it's eyes towards practical tips for what we should be eating.  The short version of the punch line is written on the cover of the book. "Eat Food, Not Too Much. Mostly Plants"  Then goes on to list a bunch of tips for how one might do this.  Most of the tips are pretty simple, like shopping around the outside of the grocery store, actually taking the time to cook food and eating slowly.  The tips serve as good reminders for what good eating looks like, and for the most part it reminded me of a lot of tasty dishes I haven't had in a while.  I'm going to try to follow them as best as I can.  I'm still not ready to become a herbivore, but I'm completely ready to become a "flexivore" and slow down my meat consumption to a more reasonable level.

There was tons of information in here that had me raising an eye brow, fat might not be all that bad for you, that was a big one. In spite of all the information floating around cough Atkins cough, which I generally consider to be nonesense. I have to confess going through this book that I feel more inclined to eat butter rather than margarine with its trans fat infused past.  CAn't say I'm doing the book justice here, but suffice it to say I would recommend this book to anyone who is slightly interested in learning more about their food!

I enjoy seeing bands, sports and really pretty much any event in a small venue and with a reasonably small crowd.  The warmth and closeness that you can have in a small venue is just awesome.  It makes the show come alive in a way that the big shows (at least the ones I've been to) can't seem to match.

Concerts

Concerts are one of my favourites. I love the music, I love the rhythm, I love the chance to dance (although I am occasionally a somewhat reluctant dancer). And I've been to a number of large concerts in stadiums and outdoor stages. And so far, I'm still loving the small venue with it's less popular band over a large venue and a wildly popular band. The conversation that a band and crowd can carry out in a smaller venue is awesome. The band stirs the crowd up, and the crowd starts giving the energy back to the band and soon, it is one awesome collective experience.

Amateur Sports

Going to the game live is pretty neat because you have the chance to be in the atmosphere and I'm certainly not saying the watching an event on TV is any substitue in the atmosphere department. But I will say that when it comes down to just seeing what is happening during the game you're almost always better to watch on TV, unless you can get tickets right up front (or go to a game where the crowd is small enough that pretty much all the tickets give you a spot that is right up front.

In both cases, whether an sporting event or a concert, the atmosphere is the reason to go and see it live.  And for my money it seems I enjoy going to twice as many small events and spending the same money as I would on one big event.

Supporting Where It Counts

The last great thing that going to smaller local shows and sporting events does, is support the events that really need support.  The band that tours across Canada hitting all the little cities, they need your support to keep going!  The local team that is playing week in and week out in the local college gym, they need you to get in there and buy hot dogs so they can keep playing! Your contribution to what they're doing is notice-able and significant.

Big Names and Watching Success Grow

There's no way around it.   If you're into supporting smaller shows, smaller venues, amateur teams, you aren't going to be seeing the big names play.  There's just no two ways about it.  I think this is something that the local supporter just has to come to terms with.

Equally troubling is watching a band/team/player grow from a small venue to the point of popularity that they can no longer play small venues. If/when someone does make it big who you supported through the course of their success they reach the point that the small venue supporter probably won't go any longer. It's kind of a sad time, a parting of company although one can always go to the big shows. It just won't be the same. And at that point, perhaps there is nothing left to do but reflect back on those first shows and enjoy the memories. In some ways being a small venue support you get to be involved in the growth of the group/team and that may be a reward all it's own.

Addendum: One totally awesome thing about going to smaller shows is how much more accessible the players or musicians are.  Chances of meeting a performer at a small show? 1:1 large show? 1:100, maybe worse!