Scan barcode
lessonz's review against another edition
First, I couldn't finish it, and I ended up browsing and skimming. If you feel that doesn't qualify me to review it, please stop reading now.
The science in this book is questionable, and its conclusions are complete leaps. For example the assertion is made we can use starvation to examine what should make up a healthy diet. Proportions are given for a human body's constituent nutrients, and the conclusion is reached this must be pretty close to a healthy diet. I saw no mention of the, what I believe is established, fact that the body preferentially canabalizes muscle and how that might influence the hypothesis. At one point the China Study is referenced to bolster the anti-gluten argument. I believe the China Studay was heavily critical of cholestoral (though I may be mistaken), but that's just completely ignored.
These are just examples and there are many more. Though to be fair, I refused to look at the notes, which are on the authors' website. Maybe all of the science is explained there.
Every few pages the reader is treated to "Reader Reports". This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. So, if you love testimonials, you'll love these.
And, this was the gem that finally had me put the book down: "The difference between eating rice and wheat could account for most of the IQ difference between Asians and Americans!"
To be clear, I am not saying the diet presented is bad or unhealthy. I'm saying if it is healthy, the material failed to convince me.
If you, like me, were looking for real science, look elsewhere. Even accounting for the intended audience, I'm not sure any of the material in here is even close to being printable in any scientific journal. If instead you're looking for another diet to try or you enjoy confirmation bias for a "primal"-type diet, maybe you'll enjoy this.
The science in this book is questionable, and its conclusions are complete leaps. For example the assertion is made we can use starvation to examine what should make up a healthy diet. Proportions are given for a human body's constituent nutrients, and the conclusion is reached this must be pretty close to a healthy diet. I saw no mention of the, what I believe is established, fact that the body preferentially canabalizes muscle and how that might influence the hypothesis. At one point the China Study is referenced to bolster the anti-gluten argument. I believe the China Studay was heavily critical of cholestoral (though I may be mistaken), but that's just completely ignored.
These are just examples and there are many more. Though to be fair, I refused to look at the notes, which are on the authors' website. Maybe all of the science is explained there.
Every few pages the reader is treated to "Reader Reports". This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. So, if you love testimonials, you'll love these.
And, this was the gem that finally had me put the book down: "The difference between eating rice and wheat could account for most of the IQ difference between Asians and Americans!"
To be clear, I am not saying the diet presented is bad or unhealthy. I'm saying if it is healthy, the material failed to convince me.
If you, like me, were looking for real science, look elsewhere. Even accounting for the intended audience, I'm not sure any of the material in here is even close to being printable in any scientific journal. If instead you're looking for another diet to try or you enjoy confirmation bias for a "primal"-type diet, maybe you'll enjoy this.
jeffthink's review against another edition
4.0
I generally think that much of nutritional science is a scam, and the title of this book seems to indicate it'd be more of the same, but I was more than pleasantly surprised with it. It did an amazing job of taking a very complex topic and breaking it down in a way that was both detailed and approachable. It combines evolutionary thinking with the results from modern scientific experiments to share a perspective on how to eat healthily. The only downside is that at times, it makes some leaps from what the experiments said to what the recommendation is. It's not all over the book, but it's the only downside to this one that I can think of. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the science behind food.
dkmons's review against another edition
4.0
Great read with lots of scientific information about nutrition and the historical / biological basis for why humans should eat real foods, specific nutrients, etc., and actually gives a prescription for how much of what we should be eating (as guidelines, of course). Combines paleo approach with anti-inflammatory, gluten-free grains and what the authors call "safe starches". Great approach for longevity and simplicity in eating and also great for athletes.
aaron_griffin's review against another edition
3.0
Like most nutrition books espousing the One True Diet, a lot of the studies come across as cherry picked. One can easily find scientific studies espousing the benefits of bean consumption, yet the PHD claims they are one of the most toxic foods a human can eat.
Still, it has some good points, and some good takeaways - if you're willing to only take the parts that are useful, while discarding the rest. I personally like the section of "supplemental" foods, suggesting people should be eating eggs, liver, seafood, and seaweed with some level of regularity for overall nutritional benefits.
Still, it has some good points, and some good takeaways - if you're willing to only take the parts that are useful, while discarding the rest. I personally like the section of "supplemental" foods, suggesting people should be eating eggs, liver, seafood, and seaweed with some level of regularity for overall nutritional benefits.
sevenebulas's review
5.0
A great compilation of research. A very interesting read, and it made a lot of sense to me.
mholla's review
2.0
More like pseudo-health diet. The amount of extrapolating in this book was astonishing (literally, extrapolating linear fits of data). And that's far from the only scientific/statistical sin in the book.
More...