Scan barcode
dajenny's review
2.0
Interesting book. Lots of facts and studies cited, which can be somewhat stupor-inducing at times. Certainly got me thinking about my eating choices and the connection between food and overall health. I know there are many people whose lives have been dramatically changed for the better because they've cut gluten out of their diet.
That said, I think he overstates his case at times. Human physiology is very complex, and brain science is just getting its start. He implies that all of our modern health and mental issues would just be solved if only people adopted a Paleo diet (though he never refers to it as such), and I don't think it's that simple. He made it sound as though dementia and Alzheimer's and schizophrenia and depression and autism and ADHD and all manner of other mental diseases can be cured by your diet. He promises control over our mental future - something we all long for, but ultimately, don't really have. (Yes, I do get that there are links. He has the research to prove it. I just think it's false hope to hold a grain-free diet as the cure.)
(Also, Scientific American had a rather lengthy article a year or two back that pointed out flaws in the Paleo diet. I think it applies here, as well).
Other complaints:
The book is pretty repetitive. By page two, I knew he thought gluten was the enemy of all things good, but he kept pounding it in, over and over and over again.
I didn't like the way he used statistics/studies. A couple of examples:
At one point, he stated that the average American adult (men and women) consumes 3300 calories per day. This seemed insanely high to me, so I did some looking, and the study I found on multiple sites said self-reported averages were 1785 for women and 2640 for men. One study found that women, on average, underestimated by about 25%. If that number holds for men as well, it bumps the averages to 2231 and 3300 calories per day. Which is not quite what Dr. Perlmutter said, and honestly makes me question some of the other things he stated in his book.
Many times, he made a statement similar to, "Study X found that, when people had low cholesterol, their risk of getting disease Y went up by 150%!". It would have been much more useful to have the actual hard numbers - that is, "For people with low cholesterol, the risk was X, while the control group's risk was Y." If the risk went from 0.001% to 0.0025%, it's a different thing than say, 1% to 2.5%. Saying it went up by 150% does have more "wow" factor, though, which is probably why he stated it that way.
I get it. He's trying to wake people up to what he sees as a very serious problem, and most of us could do with cutting back on carbs and making better choices overall. I accept that there are links between grains and mental acuity, inflammation, and obesity, and I appreciate the vast number of studies he cited. Still, I wish this had been written more as a scientific discourse and less as a diatribe against gluten.
That said, I think he overstates his case at times. Human physiology is very complex, and brain science is just getting its start. He implies that all of our modern health and mental issues would just be solved if only people adopted a Paleo diet (though he never refers to it as such), and I don't think it's that simple. He made it sound as though dementia and Alzheimer's and schizophrenia and depression and autism and ADHD and all manner of other mental diseases can be cured by your diet. He promises control over our mental future - something we all long for, but ultimately, don't really have. (Yes, I do get that there are links. He has the research to prove it. I just think it's false hope to hold a grain-free diet as the cure.)
(Also, Scientific American had a rather lengthy article a year or two back that pointed out flaws in the Paleo diet. I think it applies here, as well).
Other complaints:
The book is pretty repetitive. By page two, I knew he thought gluten was the enemy of all things good, but he kept pounding it in, over and over and over again.
I didn't like the way he used statistics/studies. A couple of examples:
At one point, he stated that the average American adult (men and women) consumes 3300 calories per day. This seemed insanely high to me, so I did some looking, and the study I found on multiple sites said self-reported averages were 1785 for women and 2640 for men. One study found that women, on average, underestimated by about 25%. If that number holds for men as well, it bumps the averages to 2231 and 3300 calories per day. Which is not quite what Dr. Perlmutter said, and honestly makes me question some of the other things he stated in his book.
Many times, he made a statement similar to, "Study X found that, when people had low cholesterol, their risk of getting disease Y went up by 150%!". It would have been much more useful to have the actual hard numbers - that is, "For people with low cholesterol, the risk was X, while the control group's risk was Y." If the risk went from 0.001% to 0.0025%, it's a different thing than say, 1% to 2.5%. Saying it went up by 150% does have more "wow" factor, though, which is probably why he stated it that way.
I get it. He's trying to wake people up to what he sees as a very serious problem, and most of us could do with cutting back on carbs and making better choices overall. I accept that there are links between grains and mental acuity, inflammation, and obesity, and I appreciate the vast number of studies he cited. Still, I wish this had been written more as a scientific discourse and less as a diatribe against gluten.
mafalda_serra's review against another edition
1.0
Sensacionalista e perigoso. Era pegar nas cópias do livro, atirar à fogueira e aproveitar o calor para cozer um pãozinho com glúten.
jdferron's review
5.0
Glad to see the medical community starting to disprove "common knowledge" about the importance of grains. Dr. Perlmutter's book is very easy to read, packed with lots of knowledge, and scary truths about the risks of grains in our diet and in our lives. I for one am definitely making changes to my diet and what supplements I take on a daily basis. A great read!
debr's review
2.0
I am fundamentally glad I read this book. I think there are some incredible anecdotal stories in here, and lots of very interesting links between sugar, inflammation, and brain health. However, I think the author has perhaps drunk too much of his own kook-aid on this issue. For a person who is trained in a scientific discipline, Dr. Perlmutter certainly has a very un-scientific hefty reliance on anecdote, extremely poor organization with which he tries to build his case, and some downright inappropriate uses or at least presentations of data. Truly, this book would have benefited from a decent editor.
While the links the author makes between grains, the inflammatory pathway, and brain health are fascinating, I am sorely disappointed that this book is really not sufficiently forthcoming in the fact that this entire area of inquiry really is in its infancy. He sort of communicates this fact, but then blazes forward talking about grains as if they were a de facto toxin and that the harms that are known of them are so obvious and proven that you must at all costs drop them entirely from your diet, or risk grave health consequences.
On his way to prove this point, I find he uses a lot of powerful, but anecdotal, case study evidence, and poor data presentation. For example, on pg 94, we are presented with a figure, "Risk of Type 2 diabetes in women using statin drugs". It compares two populations in a bar graph- those who use status, and those who do not. The risk- I think- associated with using statins is like 1.7. The risk of not using is something around 1.0. Is that what it is? I don't know, because the y-axis isn't actually explained. Is 0.7% significant? Is there variability in this value within the populations? We have no idea, because the author doesn't disclose the axis, or talk about how meaningful 0.7% (I guess its %?) is. Ok, he says the study was big, involving 160,000 postmenopausal women. With those numbers, yes, you are not likely to ignore significance if its present. But is a 0.7% difference in risk (again, if that's what it is), statistically or biologically meaningful? The book has several other examples of this, where the presentation of data is truly underwhelming and under-explained. "Its hard to ignore the significance and gravity" of this result, the author says. But I still am not understanding what the significance and gravity actually is.
I suppose one might argue that the author is trying to reach a mass audience, and not overwhelm us with data. But this book is already fairly technical in the topics it discusses- neurocellular pathways and physiology are not exactly a beach read. If you're going to share study data, you owe your audience a more complete treatment, and a less hyperbolic one than I get from this.
Because, apparently, grains are entirely toxic to us, Dr. P gives us a 24-hour fast followed by a grain-free diet with a series of menu suggestions. I have an extremely hard time believing that 98% of Americans are going to launch themselves into a completely grain-free existence, but the end of the book leaves me feeling like he is drawing a line in the sand. Is there not room, as in all things, for moderation? Couldn't we cut down the soda, processed-foods, and refined sugars and see a heck of a lot of benefits to our health and wellness? Full disclosure: I recently went gluten free myself, because I found I was having horrible allergies, and those allergies were vastly improved as soon as I removed gluten from my diet. However, I am not going to go off of grains entirely, nor do I think that is a realistic option for most people. I also find it very frustrating that Dr. P's diet is extremely animal-protein heavy- if you look at his suggested diet plan, he has you eating animal products 2 or 3 meals a day. We are well aware at this point of the extreme environmental burdens that western societies have created by being so high up on the food chain. We also know that animal fats concentrate a lot of environmental pollutants that biomagnify up the food chain. Yet none of these environmental considerations merit the slightest attention in this book, and this is a grave disservice to our wider awareness of how our dietary habits affect not only our health, but the health of our society and our planet.
In sum, yes, I think many of the topics the author presents us with are intriguing and suggestive of our need to look more closely at gluten sensitivity and the links between the inflammatory pathway, disease, and brain health. But I worry that what we have here is in fact a rather hyperbolic and aggressive push for another fad diet, and one with some grave concerns for our broader environmental health that are, sadly, not even touched upon. The human animal is phenomenally complicated. The effects of our dietary choices on the planet even more so. This book admits to and treats neither with the respect nor awareness they deserve.
While the links the author makes between grains, the inflammatory pathway, and brain health are fascinating, I am sorely disappointed that this book is really not sufficiently forthcoming in the fact that this entire area of inquiry really is in its infancy. He sort of communicates this fact, but then blazes forward talking about grains as if they were a de facto toxin and that the harms that are known of them are so obvious and proven that you must at all costs drop them entirely from your diet, or risk grave health consequences.
On his way to prove this point, I find he uses a lot of powerful, but anecdotal, case study evidence, and poor data presentation. For example, on pg 94, we are presented with a figure, "Risk of Type 2 diabetes in women using statin drugs". It compares two populations in a bar graph- those who use status, and those who do not. The risk- I think- associated with using statins is like 1.7. The risk of not using is something around 1.0. Is that what it is? I don't know, because the y-axis isn't actually explained. Is 0.7% significant? Is there variability in this value within the populations? We have no idea, because the author doesn't disclose the axis, or talk about how meaningful 0.7% (I guess its %?) is. Ok, he says the study was big, involving 160,000 postmenopausal women. With those numbers, yes, you are not likely to ignore significance if its present. But is a 0.7% difference in risk (again, if that's what it is), statistically or biologically meaningful? The book has several other examples of this, where the presentation of data is truly underwhelming and under-explained. "Its hard to ignore the significance and gravity" of this result, the author says. But I still am not understanding what the significance and gravity actually is.
I suppose one might argue that the author is trying to reach a mass audience, and not overwhelm us with data. But this book is already fairly technical in the topics it discusses- neurocellular pathways and physiology are not exactly a beach read. If you're going to share study data, you owe your audience a more complete treatment, and a less hyperbolic one than I get from this.
Because, apparently, grains are entirely toxic to us, Dr. P gives us a 24-hour fast followed by a grain-free diet with a series of menu suggestions. I have an extremely hard time believing that 98% of Americans are going to launch themselves into a completely grain-free existence, but the end of the book leaves me feeling like he is drawing a line in the sand. Is there not room, as in all things, for moderation? Couldn't we cut down the soda, processed-foods, and refined sugars and see a heck of a lot of benefits to our health and wellness? Full disclosure: I recently went gluten free myself, because I found I was having horrible allergies, and those allergies were vastly improved as soon as I removed gluten from my diet. However, I am not going to go off of grains entirely, nor do I think that is a realistic option for most people. I also find it very frustrating that Dr. P's diet is extremely animal-protein heavy- if you look at his suggested diet plan, he has you eating animal products 2 or 3 meals a day. We are well aware at this point of the extreme environmental burdens that western societies have created by being so high up on the food chain. We also know that animal fats concentrate a lot of environmental pollutants that biomagnify up the food chain. Yet none of these environmental considerations merit the slightest attention in this book, and this is a grave disservice to our wider awareness of how our dietary habits affect not only our health, but the health of our society and our planet.
In sum, yes, I think many of the topics the author presents us with are intriguing and suggestive of our need to look more closely at gluten sensitivity and the links between the inflammatory pathway, disease, and brain health. But I worry that what we have here is in fact a rather hyperbolic and aggressive push for another fad diet, and one with some grave concerns for our broader environmental health that are, sadly, not even touched upon. The human animal is phenomenally complicated. The effects of our dietary choices on the planet even more so. This book admits to and treats neither with the respect nor awareness they deserve.
its_me_theresa's review
4.0
3.5 * for readability, 5 * for thoroughness of research and making the program seem uncomplicated and accessible
jldavis's review
4.0
I try to read best-selling food books a few times a year so I thought I'd read Grain Brain. I tried to keep my credulity low and my skepticism high.
What I liked: I liked the copious studies to back up his claims. It wasn't just his advice but rather results from various studies that have been performed. The author also (obviously) has a firm grasp of the brain (he's a neurologist) and didn't spare details on the specific ways that food affects our brains (which I love).
What I didn't like: He uses anecdotal case studies from his patients. I understand that this helps a lot of people but they always irked me. Most patients came in with various maladies (ADHD, diabetes, high cholesterol, depression, etc.) and they were all magically fixed by eliminating carbs/wheats. I'd prefer if he had a section just for his anecdotes that way I could skip it and read the science instead.
I also didn't like his evolutionary argument to everything regarding a human diet. He often said something along the lines of "we evolved [some action here], therefore we should continue doing [same action]." The argument makes a lot of sense but it doesn't seem that he is considering the possibility that something that isn't evolutionary could help. A simple analogy that I came up with was antibiotics. Our body has abilities to fight off viruses and bacteria, but sometimes it can't do enough but that doesn't mean we should just let our evolutionary defenses lose, sometimes antibiotics are needed. Just because we evolved eating primarily a fat based diet, that doesn't mean there can't be a more optimal diet out there for our bodies.
My dislike list is somewhat large but overall I thought I learned a lot about this book and would definitely recommend it. It had some interesting studies/insights and I know it will influence my dietary and health habits.
What I liked: I liked the copious studies to back up his claims. It wasn't just his advice but rather results from various studies that have been performed. The author also (obviously) has a firm grasp of the brain (he's a neurologist) and didn't spare details on the specific ways that food affects our brains (which I love).
What I didn't like: He uses anecdotal case studies from his patients. I understand that this helps a lot of people but they always irked me. Most patients came in with various maladies (ADHD, diabetes, high cholesterol, depression, etc.) and they were all magically fixed by eliminating carbs/wheats. I'd prefer if he had a section just for his anecdotes that way I could skip it and read the science instead.
I also didn't like his evolutionary argument to everything regarding a human diet. He often said something along the lines of "we evolved [some action here], therefore we should continue doing [same action]." The argument makes a lot of sense but it doesn't seem that he is considering the possibility that something that isn't evolutionary could help. A simple analogy that I came up with was antibiotics. Our body has abilities to fight off viruses and bacteria, but sometimes it can't do enough but that doesn't mean we should just let our evolutionary defenses lose, sometimes antibiotics are needed. Just because we evolved eating primarily a fat based diet, that doesn't mean there can't be a more optimal diet out there for our bodies.
My dislike list is somewhat large but overall I thought I learned a lot about this book and would definitely recommend it. It had some interesting studies/insights and I know it will influence my dietary and health habits.
elysahenegar's review
3.0
Three-quarters of this book surveys studies that repetitively make the author's point that the best way to care for your brain is to avoid gluten. It's good information, if clinically presented. The last quarter introduces a basic 4 week practical plan of action to apply this information, including a sample meal plan and recipes.
mturhan's review against another edition
2.0
Anti-depresanlarla ilgili saçma sapan şeyler okuyunca yarıda bıraktım. Yazar ABDnin canan Karatay'ı falan heralde.
ranahabib's review
4.0
8.5/10 (may change as I am currently applying the contents to my life to see if it's true)
Perlmutter takes a bold stance arguing that a low carb, gluten free diet is the best diet for brain health. He claims that we should opt for a high fat, high protein diet to help increase the longevity of our life & reach optimal brain/body health (which I agree with).
While I already agree on his stance that sugar is horrible for our brain health, it took some convincing for me to see the truth about what gluten does to our body and brain (in the long run). I do have a complex relationship with gluten/wheat, so I found that reading this book has really helped me better understand WHY my body reacts to gluten/wheat the way that it does.
Perlmutter does a great job at simplifying complex concepts about how the human body works, which I really appreciate. He also does a really good job at providing sound, concrete research to help enhance his premise. I also really liked that he included meal plans and recipes in the back of the book.
His only down fall is that his writing has an air of superiority to it. He speaks in the affirmative that anyone who disagrees with him is completely wrong, disillusioned, or an idiot (which I don't agree with).
Perlmutter takes a bold stance arguing that a low carb, gluten free diet is the best diet for brain health. He claims that we should opt for a high fat, high protein diet to help increase the longevity of our life & reach optimal brain/body health (which I agree with).
While I already agree on his stance that sugar is horrible for our brain health, it took some convincing for me to see the truth about what gluten does to our body and brain (in the long run). I do have a complex relationship with gluten/wheat, so I found that reading this book has really helped me better understand WHY my body reacts to gluten/wheat the way that it does.
Perlmutter does a great job at simplifying complex concepts about how the human body works, which I really appreciate. He also does a really good job at providing sound, concrete research to help enhance his premise. I also really liked that he included meal plans and recipes in the back of the book.
His only down fall is that his writing has an air of superiority to it. He speaks in the affirmative that anyone who disagrees with him is completely wrong, disillusioned, or an idiot (which I don't agree with).