Take a photo of a barcode or cover
challenging
informative
Stopped at p. 66. This is an amazing book (*I already own the audiobook) but since this is just a library book, I'm returning it b/c I'm really feeling the need to underline. Since this is a library book, I can not do that!
informative
The author has the academic chops to have written a much better book, one that doesn't put persuasion above information. This book falls into the category of MDs who have some born-again personal dietary moment and see an opportunity for personal brand building. I am open to having my mind changed, but not by such faulty, specious logical and serial anecdotes as this author rests on.
This book, in summary, says:
- Adopt a keto diet. The author recommends eating 100% meat.
- Sugar is bad for you.
- Plants (especially seeds) are trying to hurt you. 👀🤨 (Just wait until you hear her logic on this, summarized below.)
- Epidemiological studies are less reliable than double blind controlled studies.
The author isn't wrong that some cultures eat mostly meat. But copying this diet without adopting the culture and lifestyle while also living in a different climate does not guarantee the same health outcomes. For a much better, more information-focused book on various cultural diets and lifestyles, I recommend The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum by Robert L. Kelly.
There is some useful information here, like the omega 6 to 3 ratio. But there were many more cringe-worthy morsels laid out for the uncritical pop-diet audience, which twisted my insides and offended my brain. These included:
- Swiss cheese logic, such as:
1. As the body processes high blood sugar, it releases stress hormones.
2. This is like when a toddler reaches for candy on a shelf and his mom pulls him away for his own good.
3. This must stress the toddler.
4. Therefore, your body is telling you not to eat sugar.
5. Eating sugar is bad for you.
- Vegetable oils are a super new human food (like 1960s) with an industrial/slavery legacy and to make them you need industrial chemical processes. BS. Olive oil amphoras at the bottom of the Mediterranean say otherwise. Also, making sesame oil just means grinding and straining the seeds.
- There is a lot of "we don't know about this, but it's very concerning" and "our ancestors ate this, so we should too." To some extent, I can appreciate that. But the wording is designed to all point in the same direction (aka cherry picking and pursuasion-based writing), so it doesn't give a full picture.
- Dr. Ede's questionnaire to self-diagnose for addictive sugar eating is basically, "do you feel tired or bad after eating?" That's not a very rigorous assessment.
- "There aren't any studies on this, but it's safe to say that plants don't make seeds with your health in mind" therefore don't eat seeds like grains, beans, coffee, or chocolate. 🤨
- "No self-respecting plant wants you to eat the rest of its body. So all vegetables - without exception - are trying to hurt you." Direct quote. 🙈 This is terribly flawed logic, especially in a book that tries to sell a 100% meat diet, presumably eating only animals that have evolved to want you to eat them and therefore aren't trying to hurt you. There is no discussion of the (actually interesting) chemical responses plants have to being eaten, which depend on time, how much is being eaten, who is doing the eating, what kind of plant, etc. Increasing tannins with increased grazing is one example, or cow saliva stimulating grass growth. And that's not even my main beef with the quote.
- "Mushrooms are technically not plants," which is like saying animals are technically not mushrooms. 😂 I mean, it's not wrong, but as this is the only thing she has to say about fungi, the reader can appreciate the book is mainly a keto club with which to bludgeon the reader and not a serious look at the many different things people eat.
In short, this is a diet fad book written by somebody who should know better. There is interesting new research and there are interesting lifestyle and dietary practices among various societies that could inform and influence people, but not if they are burried in a hyped up persuasion piece with arguments as weak as those above.
This book is just one more person shouting her opinions as loudly as she can, ensuring the public remains confusedly pong-ponging between dietary fads while increasing the mistrust of dietary science. It's the sort of flat-earther approach that questions the scientific consensus in the interests of giving people (some carefully curated, fringe) information so they can "make their own choice."
This book, in summary, says:
- Adopt a keto diet. The author recommends eating 100% meat.
- Sugar is bad for you.
- Plants (especially seeds) are trying to hurt you. 👀🤨 (Just wait until you hear her logic on this, summarized below.)
- Epidemiological studies are less reliable than double blind controlled studies.
The author isn't wrong that some cultures eat mostly meat. But copying this diet without adopting the culture and lifestyle while also living in a different climate does not guarantee the same health outcomes. For a much better, more information-focused book on various cultural diets and lifestyles, I recommend The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum by Robert L. Kelly.
There is some useful information here, like the omega 6 to 3 ratio. But there were many more cringe-worthy morsels laid out for the uncritical pop-diet audience, which twisted my insides and offended my brain. These included:
- Swiss cheese logic, such as:
1. As the body processes high blood sugar, it releases stress hormones.
2. This is like when a toddler reaches for candy on a shelf and his mom pulls him away for his own good.
3. This must stress the toddler.
4. Therefore, your body is telling you not to eat sugar.
5. Eating sugar is bad for you.
- Vegetable oils are a super new human food (like 1960s) with an industrial/slavery legacy and to make them you need industrial chemical processes. BS. Olive oil amphoras at the bottom of the Mediterranean say otherwise. Also, making sesame oil just means grinding and straining the seeds.
- There is a lot of "we don't know about this, but it's very concerning" and "our ancestors ate this, so we should too." To some extent, I can appreciate that. But the wording is designed to all point in the same direction (aka cherry picking and pursuasion-based writing), so it doesn't give a full picture.
- Dr. Ede's questionnaire to self-diagnose for addictive sugar eating is basically, "do you feel tired or bad after eating?" That's not a very rigorous assessment.
- "There aren't any studies on this, but it's safe to say that plants don't make seeds with your health in mind" therefore don't eat seeds like grains, beans, coffee, or chocolate. 🤨
- "No self-respecting plant wants you to eat the rest of its body. So all vegetables - without exception - are trying to hurt you." Direct quote. 🙈 This is terribly flawed logic, especially in a book that tries to sell a 100% meat diet, presumably eating only animals that have evolved to want you to eat them and therefore aren't trying to hurt you. There is no discussion of the (actually interesting) chemical responses plants have to being eaten, which depend on time, how much is being eaten, who is doing the eating, what kind of plant, etc. Increasing tannins with increased grazing is one example, or cow saliva stimulating grass growth. And that's not even my main beef with the quote.
- "Mushrooms are technically not plants," which is like saying animals are technically not mushrooms. 😂 I mean, it's not wrong, but as this is the only thing she has to say about fungi, the reader can appreciate the book is mainly a keto club with which to bludgeon the reader and not a serious look at the many different things people eat.
In short, this is a diet fad book written by somebody who should know better. There is interesting new research and there are interesting lifestyle and dietary practices among various societies that could inform and influence people, but not if they are burried in a hyped up persuasion piece with arguments as weak as those above.
This book is just one more person shouting her opinions as loudly as she can, ensuring the public remains confusedly pong-ponging between dietary fads while increasing the mistrust of dietary science. It's the sort of flat-earther approach that questions the scientific consensus in the interests of giving people (some carefully curated, fringe) information so they can "make their own choice."
informative
slow-paced
This book seems to be very well researched and scientific, which makes it a very dense read. This text generally recommends a full overhaul of your entire way of eating to be able to accomplish changes in your mental health. I was able to take away few pieces of nutrition information, but unless you are ready to go to a keto or paleo or carnivore diet then you might not walk away with much that's helpful.
informative
slow-paced
informative
Like other reviewers I found this book extremely well researched and made the case for eating differently for mental health. Where it lost me was in the actual meal plans provided which essentially felt like it would be impossible for someone with mental illness to manage the diets. I found it quite disheartening.
My doctor. recommended this to me just to learn more about how foods can affect the body.
I did not finish it (maybe I will one day) but read enough that I feel I can leave a review.
I think there is a lot of informative and beneficial information in here. I think it’s a radical new look at treating psychiatric conditions especially. It certainly can provide people more information about the impact of foods on the body.
My biggest issue with what I did read of it is that she often argues that there is not enough evidence to make x claim that the food industry makes. However, she then argues that her restrictive diet ideas are beneficial and correct when they also appear to have a similar or less amount of evidence. I would’ve liked counter arguments on her part.
I appreciate that she says people with previous history of eating disorders should not follow some of her eating plans because they are incredibly restrictive.
Many complaints about the book mention that she doesn’t address the issues of meat farming and issues today. She does mention them, but I do agree that I would’ve preferred to see more information about the harmful effects of microplastics, etc. on the body.
A radical book I think is dangerous to take at face value but has some interesting information and hopefully launches more important scientific discourse on how foods support and hurt the human body.
I did not finish it (maybe I will one day) but read enough that I feel I can leave a review.
I think there is a lot of informative and beneficial information in here. I think it’s a radical new look at treating psychiatric conditions especially. It certainly can provide people more information about the impact of foods on the body.
My biggest issue with what I did read of it is that she often argues that there is not enough evidence to make x claim that the food industry makes. However, she then argues that her restrictive diet ideas are beneficial and correct when they also appear to have a similar or less amount of evidence. I would’ve liked counter arguments on her part.
I appreciate that she says people with previous history of eating disorders should not follow some of her eating plans because they are incredibly restrictive.
Many complaints about the book mention that she doesn’t address the issues of meat farming and issues today. She does mention them, but I do agree that I would’ve preferred to see more information about the harmful effects of microplastics, etc. on the body.
A radical book I think is dangerous to take at face value but has some interesting information and hopefully launches more important scientific discourse on how foods support and hurt the human body.