Scan barcode
gypsydawn's review against another edition
3.0
Dated and not as nutritionally sound as it should be considering the numerous editions published by this point. I gave it a 3 because it's main premise, that sugar is poison, is spot on. However, the delineation between fructose and glucose, as well as advocating for processed foods proven to harm - this is problematic.
simonea's review against another edition
4.0
David Gillespie has written quite a controversial book. In Sweet Poison he claims that sugar is not just a little bad for you, but as bad as poison. A poison that is not recognized as such at the moment and with which millions of people infuse themselves every single day. Day in, day out…
I’m a bit skeptical when people say that sugar is bad, our bodies run on glucose, don’t they? The idea of Sweet Poison is, though, that not all sugars, but only fructose is to blame for our first-world problems. As the author argues, fructose is two-fold bad news. Unlike fat and glucose, no natural feedback loop is in place for fructose. The absence of this feedback loop makes our ability to tell when we’ve had enough fail. Furthermore, as fructose is broken down, it increases the level of fatty acids in our blood and is basically directly converted to fat. So, all diet plans can go out the window. Instead of avoiding too much (saturated) fat, we should avoid sugar. Fructose is the new fat, apparently.
I do think he read up on a lot of the academic research that is normally inaccessible for the general public. The danger is, however, that when looking for specific information, you only find that what suits your hypothesis. The world of food is not black and white, so neither is the research. By claiming that it is, one is either acknowledging just that what fits the hypothesis or demonstrating a poor capability of literature research. So while I think that the book is definitely thought provoking, I have to agree that Gillespie is just telling a story. Sure, for some parts of it there is scientific evidence. That does not mean though that you can take these bits and pieces and glue them together in a scientifically accurate story. Because that’s exactly what you get, a story without a complete foundation of evidence. That also doesn’t mean that what he’s saying is not correct. I would be very interested to see the future research on this topic. I did a quick search already and indeed saw some evidence of detrimental effects of fructose. The research doesn’t cover the whole story yet, however. So in the end future research is necessary to shed light on these matters.
In the end, Sweet Poison was definitely an interesting read. While the evidence might not be completely watertight (yet), I do agree that consuming the amounts of sugar we currently do, can never be good for us. David Gillespie makes it interesting by telling his own story and what made it hard for him to cut down on sugar and lose weight. He makes it clear that he’s by no means one of those perfect diet gurus. One has to be careful though and not take his advice to the letter. Keep thinking for yourself too. Everything in moderation and do what feels good!
See full review here
I’m a bit skeptical when people say that sugar is bad, our bodies run on glucose, don’t they? The idea of Sweet Poison is, though, that not all sugars, but only fructose is to blame for our first-world problems. As the author argues, fructose is two-fold bad news. Unlike fat and glucose, no natural feedback loop is in place for fructose. The absence of this feedback loop makes our ability to tell when we’ve had enough fail. Furthermore, as fructose is broken down, it increases the level of fatty acids in our blood and is basically directly converted to fat. So, all diet plans can go out the window. Instead of avoiding too much (saturated) fat, we should avoid sugar. Fructose is the new fat, apparently.
I do think he read up on a lot of the academic research that is normally inaccessible for the general public. The danger is, however, that when looking for specific information, you only find that what suits your hypothesis. The world of food is not black and white, so neither is the research. By claiming that it is, one is either acknowledging just that what fits the hypothesis or demonstrating a poor capability of literature research. So while I think that the book is definitely thought provoking, I have to agree that Gillespie is just telling a story. Sure, for some parts of it there is scientific evidence. That does not mean though that you can take these bits and pieces and glue them together in a scientifically accurate story. Because that’s exactly what you get, a story without a complete foundation of evidence. That also doesn’t mean that what he’s saying is not correct. I would be very interested to see the future research on this topic. I did a quick search already and indeed saw some evidence of detrimental effects of fructose. The research doesn’t cover the whole story yet, however. So in the end future research is necessary to shed light on these matters.
In the end, Sweet Poison was definitely an interesting read. While the evidence might not be completely watertight (yet), I do agree that consuming the amounts of sugar we currently do, can never be good for us. David Gillespie makes it interesting by telling his own story and what made it hard for him to cut down on sugar and lose weight. He makes it clear that he’s by no means one of those perfect diet gurus. One has to be careful though and not take his advice to the letter. Keep thinking for yourself too. Everything in moderation and do what feels good!
See full review here
nickystrickland's review against another edition
3.0
I thought it had some interesting and pertinent points to make about the changes in food over the past few decades in particular. Has done a lot of reading of the research literature and manages to translate (most of it) into more plain English.
twistinthetale's review against another edition
4.0
This was an accessible book that made sense of the 'sugar' topic. Still convinced that moderation in all things is the key but Gillespie's book has certainly inspired me to check food labels and become more aware of what I eat. I'll be looking for low fructose options, for sure.
poodlydoo72's review against another edition
3.0
Another book about sugar--clearly I have some sugar issues....
A lot of this info was commonsense to me, and this book was written in 2008, so a bit outdated. Still, I mostly read it to try to give me a kick in the pants to reduce my sugar consumption. We'll see if it works...
A lot of this info was commonsense to me, and this book was written in 2008, so a bit outdated. Still, I mostly read it to try to give me a kick in the pants to reduce my sugar consumption. We'll see if it works...
happyhobbit1's review against another edition
3.0
My score: 6.5-7/10
http://happyhobbit1.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/sweet-poison-by-david-gillespie.html
http://happyhobbit1.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/sweet-poison-by-david-gillespie.html
roxyc's review against another edition
2.0
It was okay. Although it is a little unrealistic to cut out all foods that contain fructose... Never eating Fruit or quite a few veggies that have fructose also doesn't sound that smart. Processed foods with high quantities of sugar i can understand but surely the health benefits of fruit far outweigh the small amount of fructose they contain. It was very informative about the effects of various sugars in the body though.
tansybradshaw's review against another edition
4.0
Some good tables and all, some of the info was overloaded but all good.