Whatever you call it ("clean" eating, "wellness" diets or a focus on "real-food"), the basic tenants are the same: Cutting out processed food in favour of whole ingredients and usually skipping out on the gluten and refined sugars on the way. The figureheads of the movement have been quick to try and distance it from dieting, screaming variations on "IT'S A LIFESTYLE NOT A FAD!". In the "About" page on her website Ella Woodward said that her recipe books are not about "diet or deprivation". Red Magazine said "Don’t diet. Instead, get into the Hemsley + Hemsley habit of cooking real, healthy food" (Brigid Moss). Amelia Freer states in Nourish and Glow: The 10 Day Plan that the key is not focusing on "what you can't have to eat, but on what you can and should have to eat" (30). But after clearing my cupboards out of everything not recommended in Deliciously Ella in my last post, I was already exhausted. They may not be called "rules", but I can't help but feel like branding it as a healthy lifestyle doesn't stop it from feeling exactly like every other restrictive diet out there. Sure, these books insist that it's not about losing weight - they're about getting the "glow" (Freer), experiencing a "world of goodness" (Woodward, Deliciously Ella) and "living healthier, happier lives" (Hemsley and Hemlsey, 2) - but is that just a new face for the diet industry?
In this blog, I want to talk from the perspective of a toast-enthusiast about the clean eating movement and its relation to all of the dieting books that have come before it. I want to explore the diet book as a unique form of literature, examining their use of language, world-building and the way that we consume them, all of which lead to us believing that we can't be trusted to dictate what we eat. And, most importantly, I want to ardently argue that bread is not the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment