What do you think?
Rate this book
Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong
In the course of research, Tim Spector has been shocked to discover how little scientific evidence there is for many of our most deep-rooted ideas about food. Is salt really bad for you? Is fish good for you? What about coffee, red meat, or saturated fats? Can pregnant women rely on their doctor’s advice about what to eat? Does gluten-free food carry any health benefits at all? Do doctors know anything about nutrition?
In twenty short, myth-busting chapters, Tim Spector reveals why almost everything we’ve been told about food is wrong. He reveals the scandalous lack of good scientific evidence for many medical and government food recommendations, and how the food industry holds sway over these policies. These are urgent issues that matter not just for our health as individuals but for the future of the planet.
Spoon-Fed forces us to question every diet plan, government recommendation, miracle cure or food label we encounter, and encourages us to rethink our whole relationship with food.
In twenty short, myth-busting chapters, Tim Spector reveals why almost everything we’ve been told about food is wrong. He reveals the scandalous lack of good scientific evidence for many medical and government food recommendations, and how the food industry holds sway over these policies. These are urgent issues that matter not just for our health as individuals but for the future of the planet.
Spoon-Fed forces us to question every diet plan, government recommendation, miracle cure or food label we encounter, and encourages us to rethink our whole relationship with food.
288 pages, ebook
First published May 14, 2020
1320 people are currently reading
7764 people want to read
About the author
Tim Spector
58 books409 followersTim Spector is Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at Kings College, London and Director of the TwinsUK Registry, which is one of the worlds richest data collections on 11,000 twins. He trained as a physician with a career in research, which since 1992 has demonstrated the genetic basis of a wide range of common diseases, previously thought to be mainly due to ageing and environment. Most recently his group have found over 400 novel genes in over 30 diseases, such as osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, melanoma, baldness, and longevity. He has published over 600 research articles in prestigious journals including Science and Nature. He coordinates many worldwide genetic consortia and is currently at the forefront of research with a highly competitive European Research Council Senior Investigator award to study Epigenetics – a new exciting research area into how genes can be altered. He is the author of several books for the scientific and public communities and presents regularly in the media.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 467 reviews
October 28, 2020
Tim Spector's book comes in the Ben Goldacre tradition of skewering commonly-held but scientifically unproven claims - in this case in the world of food advice and diets. Right off the bat I will state categorically that everyone ought to read this book. It offers a powerful and often accurate challenge to a whole host of misinformation we are (ahem) fed by the food industry, governments and academics.
Let's take a couple of examples where the book really is at its best. Spector discusses the incredibly confusing and mostly scientifically ungrounded world of pregnancy food guidelines. He notes a range of incongruous contradictions in advice: in the UK and US, for instance, pregnant women are encouraged to avoid eggs, particularly raw eggs, at all costs while in the Philippines, meanwhile, they are actively encouraged to eat them. Similarly in Japan women eat sushi while raw fish is frowned upon elsewhere. Such examples, at a basic level, encourage a scepticism in the reader at blanket, dogmatic guidelines that is extremely valuable. Spector goes on to point out the things that do matter during pregnancy, notably the question of weight gain: far from being common that women gain too little weight (the 'eating for two' myth) excessive weight gain is more concerning. This leads to the conclusion that instead of focussing on a handful of foods that marginally increase the risks of already rare diseases, doctors would be better off taking a wider view of pregnant women's diet and focussing attention there.
In a similar vein, Spector spends a wonderful two chapters reeling off the evidence around food allergies (particularly of the gluten kind). He opens his allergy chapter with a discussion of a study of Americans, showing that only half of those self-reporting as allergy sufferers had a demonstrable food allergy. The author also draws enlightening comparisons with other diseases: while people fret about the risk of anaphylactic reactions (killing 10 people per year in the UK) far fewer understand the much greater risks from common allergies like asthma (killing 1,400 per year). This matters because parents are increasingly forcing restrictive diets on children, partly through fear of perceived allergies, leading to a possibly uptick in malnourished young people as a result.
The gluten chapter similarly describes much interesting work investigating the actual prevalence of gluten intolerance: a study in Italy of 392 self-reported sufferers revealed that 8 in 10 had no adverse reactions to gluten or wheat. As in the chapter on pregnancy, the aim of such discussion is to encourage scepticism in the reader, both in advice they receive but also in what they perceive about themselves. Spector encourages the reader to experiment. If you think you are gluten intolerant, perform an actual test: remove gluten for three weeks and then reintroduce it for three weeks to test its impact. And repeat the test in future. As so often in this book, the message is to try not to limit your diet unnecessarily - particularly not to more processed foods like those in the free-from isle - so testing whether your allergy may have disappeared (as can be the case for milk and egg allergies for instance, which often disappear after a few years) is crucial to ensuring your diet remains as varied and rich as possible.
This, as I said, is the book at its best. Unfortunately, the book falls down in a number of ways too, meaning it cannot attain the status of a truly great popular science book. One of the great points about this book is the author's willingness to tell the reader about studies and describe their pros and cons. Typically, studies are small, under-powered and far from conclusive (hence we should all be sceptical about food guidelines) and Spector rightly highlights this. However, he himself utilises exceptionally small studies to make his own points, borrowing from the arsenal of the food industry he criticises so much, and goes on to make extremely strong statements that are not backed up by evidence he has just described. A great example of this is in the sweeteners chapter. After referring to a study that itself critiqued the limitations of other studies into artificially sweetened beverages, Spector makes use of a study of only 15 people in a discussion on why diet soft drinks may not help with weight loss. He goes on to note (rightly) that there is a "lack of human data" but on the very next page makes the extremely strong statement that "all the evidence suggests that artificially sweetened beverages are far from inert and are definitely not a healthy substitute for sugar in drinks or other processed food products". This is an extraordinarily strong claim and is precisely the sort of thing that, elsewhere in the book, the author criticises governments and the food industry for doing. Such moves undermine confidence in the author - who, ironically, has implanted just the kind of scientific scepticism in the reader that should have them questioning such claims.
Elsewhere in this chapter, Spector falls into a few more traps which seriously grated: throughout the book he refers to chemicals being added to foods in a negative, sometimes near hysterical way (in the sweeteners discussion he states without evidence that "stevia will soon be added to nearly every type of processed food"). But on the topic of stevia (a plant, not a lab-created monstrosity) the author has to change tac to maintain his anti-sweetener stance, disingenuously pointing out that just being a plant doesn't make Stevia healthy in the same way as the poisonous hemlock wouldn't make a great addition to our diets. A similar move in the discussion of diet and pregnant women is drawing a line between the 20 pregnant women in the UK who contract listeriosis and the thousands who die in car crashes. This is clearly spurious: pregnant women may well want to eliminate their likelihood of ingesting listeria by cutting out cheese but are unlikely to be able to cease driving their cars entirely.
Such sleights of hand let down the book and do not belong in a work that rightly hammers others for both misuse of scientific evidence as well as utilising marketing and spin (which drawing analogies between stevia and hemlock surely counts as) rather than facts to sell their products.
Another issue is that Spector often helps the reader to develop a much more nuanced and fact-based understanding of something but then risks throwing out all our understanding with the proverbial bath water. In the chapter on calories, Spector makes a number of extremely important claims - that calorie labels are often plain wrong; that not all calories are equal; that food preparation and food interactions can alter our actual calorie intake. These all hit at the heart of simplistic diet approaches and are potent arguments against naive calorie counting.
However, Spector takes this too far, inveigling us to discard calorie information entirely. I reject Spector's seeming conclusion that calorie data have zero informative content. I think his messages are right: take calorie numbers with a huge pinch of salt and do not be beholden to them because of their many limitations, focussing attentions on a good diet rather than targeting a potentially erroneous number of calories per day. But to disregard these numbers entirely is going too far, losing a potentially valuable tool (among many) in our ongoing fight to be healthy. To give just one example of a use case: you have decided to treat yourself to a burger from a fast food restaurant. I see nothing scientifically un-principled about opting for the burger with 200 fewer calories to be a little bit better to yourself.
Last but not least, the whole book was soured by my uneasy suspicion that so much of what I was reading about the motives of the food industry to sell us diet-free fad products or other gimmicks was a flaw the author was guilty of too. The breakout star of the book is undoubtedly the gut microbiome - the hundreds of trillions of bacteria, fungi, viruses and other assorted things we generally don't have positive thoughts about that live in our intestine and, a growing body of research has shown, contribute hugely to our digestion and health. None of this is revolutionary; the microbiome has been 'sexy' in the academic world for a good few years now. And the clear relevance to diet makes this a worthwhile thing to discuss in the context of dispelling diet myths. Many times in the book the author's TwinsUK study is cited, noting the surprising differences between identical twins that is often traced back to differences in the gut microbiome.
But, for all the evidence provided I couldn't ignore the fact that Tim Spector founded a start-up called Zoe - which, among other things, offers tests of your microbiome to give you diet advice. A mid-2019 FT article indicates the company at that time had raised $27 million - and as the founder Prof Spector is likely to have benefited handsomely from this and from any future success should the company grow substantially, go public or be bought by one of the food industry titans. The author raises this company at the beginning of the book but doesn't, curiously enough, flag it as a clear conflict of interest. In short, I'm all for academics commercialising their work. But in a book that presents itself as a squeeky-clean defender of the true against the corrupting, compromised food industry and their bought-and-paid-for government stooges, it is unfortunate that the author spends so much time highlighting a technology he may well financially benefit from.
In the end this book taught me a lot and is a very worthwhile read to support everyone's food education. What I would not be surprised to see in ten or twenty years time, however, is that the gut microbiome focus of the author - and crucially attempts to commercialise it as a diet or wellbeing tool - is just another overly simplistic attempt to profit from confused consumers seeking answers.
Let's take a couple of examples where the book really is at its best. Spector discusses the incredibly confusing and mostly scientifically ungrounded world of pregnancy food guidelines. He notes a range of incongruous contradictions in advice: in the UK and US, for instance, pregnant women are encouraged to avoid eggs, particularly raw eggs, at all costs while in the Philippines, meanwhile, they are actively encouraged to eat them. Similarly in Japan women eat sushi while raw fish is frowned upon elsewhere. Such examples, at a basic level, encourage a scepticism in the reader at blanket, dogmatic guidelines that is extremely valuable. Spector goes on to point out the things that do matter during pregnancy, notably the question of weight gain: far from being common that women gain too little weight (the 'eating for two' myth) excessive weight gain is more concerning. This leads to the conclusion that instead of focussing on a handful of foods that marginally increase the risks of already rare diseases, doctors would be better off taking a wider view of pregnant women's diet and focussing attention there.
In a similar vein, Spector spends a wonderful two chapters reeling off the evidence around food allergies (particularly of the gluten kind). He opens his allergy chapter with a discussion of a study of Americans, showing that only half of those self-reporting as allergy sufferers had a demonstrable food allergy. The author also draws enlightening comparisons with other diseases: while people fret about the risk of anaphylactic reactions (killing 10 people per year in the UK) far fewer understand the much greater risks from common allergies like asthma (killing 1,400 per year). This matters because parents are increasingly forcing restrictive diets on children, partly through fear of perceived allergies, leading to a possibly uptick in malnourished young people as a result.
The gluten chapter similarly describes much interesting work investigating the actual prevalence of gluten intolerance: a study in Italy of 392 self-reported sufferers revealed that 8 in 10 had no adverse reactions to gluten or wheat. As in the chapter on pregnancy, the aim of such discussion is to encourage scepticism in the reader, both in advice they receive but also in what they perceive about themselves. Spector encourages the reader to experiment. If you think you are gluten intolerant, perform an actual test: remove gluten for three weeks and then reintroduce it for three weeks to test its impact. And repeat the test in future. As so often in this book, the message is to try not to limit your diet unnecessarily - particularly not to more processed foods like those in the free-from isle - so testing whether your allergy may have disappeared (as can be the case for milk and egg allergies for instance, which often disappear after a few years) is crucial to ensuring your diet remains as varied and rich as possible.
This, as I said, is the book at its best. Unfortunately, the book falls down in a number of ways too, meaning it cannot attain the status of a truly great popular science book. One of the great points about this book is the author's willingness to tell the reader about studies and describe their pros and cons. Typically, studies are small, under-powered and far from conclusive (hence we should all be sceptical about food guidelines) and Spector rightly highlights this. However, he himself utilises exceptionally small studies to make his own points, borrowing from the arsenal of the food industry he criticises so much, and goes on to make extremely strong statements that are not backed up by evidence he has just described. A great example of this is in the sweeteners chapter. After referring to a study that itself critiqued the limitations of other studies into artificially sweetened beverages, Spector makes use of a study of only 15 people in a discussion on why diet soft drinks may not help with weight loss. He goes on to note (rightly) that there is a "lack of human data" but on the very next page makes the extremely strong statement that "all the evidence suggests that artificially sweetened beverages are far from inert and are definitely not a healthy substitute for sugar in drinks or other processed food products". This is an extraordinarily strong claim and is precisely the sort of thing that, elsewhere in the book, the author criticises governments and the food industry for doing. Such moves undermine confidence in the author - who, ironically, has implanted just the kind of scientific scepticism in the reader that should have them questioning such claims.
Elsewhere in this chapter, Spector falls into a few more traps which seriously grated: throughout the book he refers to chemicals being added to foods in a negative, sometimes near hysterical way (in the sweeteners discussion he states without evidence that "stevia will soon be added to nearly every type of processed food"). But on the topic of stevia (a plant, not a lab-created monstrosity) the author has to change tac to maintain his anti-sweetener stance, disingenuously pointing out that just being a plant doesn't make Stevia healthy in the same way as the poisonous hemlock wouldn't make a great addition to our diets. A similar move in the discussion of diet and pregnant women is drawing a line between the 20 pregnant women in the UK who contract listeriosis and the thousands who die in car crashes. This is clearly spurious: pregnant women may well want to eliminate their likelihood of ingesting listeria by cutting out cheese but are unlikely to be able to cease driving their cars entirely.
Such sleights of hand let down the book and do not belong in a work that rightly hammers others for both misuse of scientific evidence as well as utilising marketing and spin (which drawing analogies between stevia and hemlock surely counts as) rather than facts to sell their products.
Another issue is that Spector often helps the reader to develop a much more nuanced and fact-based understanding of something but then risks throwing out all our understanding with the proverbial bath water. In the chapter on calories, Spector makes a number of extremely important claims - that calorie labels are often plain wrong; that not all calories are equal; that food preparation and food interactions can alter our actual calorie intake. These all hit at the heart of simplistic diet approaches and are potent arguments against naive calorie counting.
However, Spector takes this too far, inveigling us to discard calorie information entirely. I reject Spector's seeming conclusion that calorie data have zero informative content. I think his messages are right: take calorie numbers with a huge pinch of salt and do not be beholden to them because of their many limitations, focussing attentions on a good diet rather than targeting a potentially erroneous number of calories per day. But to disregard these numbers entirely is going too far, losing a potentially valuable tool (among many) in our ongoing fight to be healthy. To give just one example of a use case: you have decided to treat yourself to a burger from a fast food restaurant. I see nothing scientifically un-principled about opting for the burger with 200 fewer calories to be a little bit better to yourself.
Last but not least, the whole book was soured by my uneasy suspicion that so much of what I was reading about the motives of the food industry to sell us diet-free fad products or other gimmicks was a flaw the author was guilty of too. The breakout star of the book is undoubtedly the gut microbiome - the hundreds of trillions of bacteria, fungi, viruses and other assorted things we generally don't have positive thoughts about that live in our intestine and, a growing body of research has shown, contribute hugely to our digestion and health. None of this is revolutionary; the microbiome has been 'sexy' in the academic world for a good few years now. And the clear relevance to diet makes this a worthwhile thing to discuss in the context of dispelling diet myths. Many times in the book the author's TwinsUK study is cited, noting the surprising differences between identical twins that is often traced back to differences in the gut microbiome.
But, for all the evidence provided I couldn't ignore the fact that Tim Spector founded a start-up called Zoe - which, among other things, offers tests of your microbiome to give you diet advice. A mid-2019 FT article indicates the company at that time had raised $27 million - and as the founder Prof Spector is likely to have benefited handsomely from this and from any future success should the company grow substantially, go public or be bought by one of the food industry titans. The author raises this company at the beginning of the book but doesn't, curiously enough, flag it as a clear conflict of interest. In short, I'm all for academics commercialising their work. But in a book that presents itself as a squeeky-clean defender of the true against the corrupting, compromised food industry and their bought-and-paid-for government stooges, it is unfortunate that the author spends so much time highlighting a technology he may well financially benefit from.
In the end this book taught me a lot and is a very worthwhile read to support everyone's food education. What I would not be surprised to see in ten or twenty years time, however, is that the gut microbiome focus of the author - and crucially attempts to commercialise it as a diet or wellbeing tool - is just another overly simplistic attempt to profit from confused consumers seeking answers.
March 5, 2024
Spoon Fed is an interesting and well researched book about food myths. The author tries to prove that we do not need to take the established diet advices as absolute truth. He snwers some questions such as" Is salt really bad for you? Is fish good for you? What about coffee, red meat, or saturated fats? etc. Usually the truth is to be moderate and Mediterranean diet :))
Read
January 5, 2022Hmm. This book takes on a lot of the received wisdom about food (read the labels, drink eight glasses of water, salt and fat are bad, you can lose weight by exercise) and looks at the scientific research behind it, which in all cases seems to be "virtually none, and carried out by someone paid by the food companies". It stresses the way advice and practice varies globally, which rather makes a mockery of any particular set of health guidelines being holy writ (especially drinking limits and what to eat in pregnancy) and also the astonishing variations in individual bodies. We all process food differently, have different gut microbiomes, digest better at different times of day, and one-size fits all advice isn't really much use. (Especially not eg 'women should eat 2000 calories a day', which very much depends on the woman, and also ignores that calorie labelling is shatteringly inaccurate, etc etc). And, unusually, the author pays continuous attention to the effects of being cash and time poor on diets, and puts the blame firmly on food companies and inadequate governance rather than the individual.
In general, I liked it, though I would: the basic principles are "ignore fads and alarmism, don't trust marketing, don't bother with supplements or fake-healthy food, have a varied diet with a lot of plants, be moderate with the treats". Which seems sensible but it's nice to read the science is on our side.
All that said, I have to say my faith in the author's reliability took a very steep dive at the point he suggests the British could eat sloes in the winter instead of imported mangoes ahahaha mate have you ever eaten a sloe? (Clearly not.)
In general, I liked it, though I would: the basic principles are "ignore fads and alarmism, don't trust marketing, don't bother with supplements or fake-healthy food, have a varied diet with a lot of plants, be moderate with the treats". Which seems sensible but it's nice to read the science is on our side.
All that said, I have to say my faith in the author's reliability took a very steep dive at the point he suggests the British could eat sloes in the winter instead of imported mangoes ahahaha mate have you ever eaten a sloe? (Clearly not.)
December 29, 2020
I had high hopes for this book - after all, Tim Spector is well known and works for some prestigious organisations. However, I ended up desperately disappointed.
The concept is good - peel back the layers of confusion and misinformation that surround much of the food hype of today. Unfortunately, the execution is poor. It feels like it's been written in a rush and has barely been edited, if at all. I should have known I was in for a rough ride the minute I read "a myriad of".
Here are just of few of the issues that detract from the message: tenses are all over the place; there's a fair bit of repetition; there's incorrect use of the term 'microbiome' (it's the microbiota, Tim; the microbiome is the genetic material of the microbiota); there are some basic inconsistencies (on page 9 of the paperback version the gut microflora is correctly stated as being mainly located in the large intestine; on page 32 he says it's mainly in the small intestine); there are odd terms such as 'mini-virus'; there's a strange ingredient called 'sourdough flour'; there are odd sentence fragments; there's a claim that artificial sweeteners are added to extend shelf-life - certainly sugars do (by reducing water availability) but I'd be surprised if aspartame etc had the same effect).
There are many other grating examples that could have been eliminated if the manuscript had been through the hands of an experienced and science-appropriate editor. I stopped noting them down because it was annoying me so much!
Worse, though, is overall tone of the book. Spector uses hyperbole far too often to maintain scientific credibility - phrases like 'most British chickens and their packaging are caked in salmonella and campylobacter' are the sort of thing I'd expect to find in a tabloid newspaper. (Interestingly, the reference for this is a 2014 Guardian article. There is more recent data available on food.gov.uk, perhaps a more authoritative source of information.) 'Contaminated with' does not mean the same as 'caked with' - in the latest data published, only 7% of chickens sampled fell into the 'highly contaminated' category.
It's this sort of evangelical approach that detracts from any clear science-based message that Spector is trying to convey. It feels like he has selectively used research data to support his views, which is a criticism he levels at the food industry. For any reader with a degree of scientific literacy, this will come as a disappointment.
However, if you can tolerate the grammatical issues, the hyperbole, and the 'government is wrong about everything' approach, and if you're not well-informed about some of these common food myths, then you may well enjoy and benefit from reading this book, as the underlying messages are sound. As a reading experience, though, I'd recommend Michael Pollan (especially The Omnivore's Dilemma) and also How to Live, by Robert Thomas.
The concept is good - peel back the layers of confusion and misinformation that surround much of the food hype of today. Unfortunately, the execution is poor. It feels like it's been written in a rush and has barely been edited, if at all. I should have known I was in for a rough ride the minute I read "a myriad of".
Here are just of few of the issues that detract from the message: tenses are all over the place; there's a fair bit of repetition; there's incorrect use of the term 'microbiome' (it's the microbiota, Tim; the microbiome is the genetic material of the microbiota); there are some basic inconsistencies (on page 9 of the paperback version the gut microflora is correctly stated as being mainly located in the large intestine; on page 32 he says it's mainly in the small intestine); there are odd terms such as 'mini-virus'; there's a strange ingredient called 'sourdough flour'; there are odd sentence fragments; there's a claim that artificial sweeteners are added to extend shelf-life - certainly sugars do (by reducing water availability) but I'd be surprised if aspartame etc had the same effect).
There are many other grating examples that could have been eliminated if the manuscript had been through the hands of an experienced and science-appropriate editor. I stopped noting them down because it was annoying me so much!
Worse, though, is overall tone of the book. Spector uses hyperbole far too often to maintain scientific credibility - phrases like 'most British chickens and their packaging are caked in salmonella and campylobacter' are the sort of thing I'd expect to find in a tabloid newspaper. (Interestingly, the reference for this is a 2014 Guardian article. There is more recent data available on food.gov.uk, perhaps a more authoritative source of information.) 'Contaminated with' does not mean the same as 'caked with' - in the latest data published, only 7% of chickens sampled fell into the 'highly contaminated' category.
It's this sort of evangelical approach that detracts from any clear science-based message that Spector is trying to convey. It feels like he has selectively used research data to support his views, which is a criticism he levels at the food industry. For any reader with a degree of scientific literacy, this will come as a disappointment.
However, if you can tolerate the grammatical issues, the hyperbole, and the 'government is wrong about everything' approach, and if you're not well-informed about some of these common food myths, then you may well enjoy and benefit from reading this book, as the underlying messages are sound. As a reading experience, though, I'd recommend Michael Pollan (especially The Omnivore's Dilemma) and also How to Live, by Robert Thomas.
March 30, 2023
Ако сте обикновен човек, който леко се интересува от здравословен живот и като цяло се информира за него от заглавията в медиите и от това, което му казват докторите, тази книга има доооооста какво да ви каже.
Основното от това "дооооста" е каква ужасна, непоправима бъркотия и мъгла са изследванията относно връзката между храните и здравето.
Да, основите на здравословния живот и хранене са известни отдавна - яж умерено, предимно естествени храни и се движи повече. Но...
Всякакви хора се упражняват да се правят на учени по темата, да правят "изследвания" с по 5 мишки и да пляскат сензационни заглавия по медиите. А всякакви фирми и лобисти се упражняват да плащат и да оказват други видове натиск върху тия изследвания и техните резултати, защото от тях зависят милиардните им продажби на боклуци.
Ама наистина - хранителната "наука" направо гъмжи от лоша наука. Малки изследвания с по няколко участници, неправилно изчислени зависимости, p hacking, големи популационни изследвания, резултатите от които се представят като причинно-следствени, а не като корелация, недостоверни данни от "хранителни въпросници" относно какво е ял човек последната година и колко (кой помни това??) и още, и още, и още...
До степен дори приемани до скоро за "златен стандарт" общоприети виждания като вредата от солта, холестерола и наситените мазнини да се поддават все повече и повече на атаките на повече и по-научно издържани изследвания.
Прибавете към това факта, че общопрактикуващите лекари и дори специалистите по ендокринни заболявания (например)за няколкото си години медицинско образование и специализация имат едва няколко учебни часа относно здравословното хранене и...
Резултатите от цялата тая какафония са, че повечето от "общоприетото" в здравословното хранене и лечението на свързаните с храненето болести е или невярно или най-малкото силно изкривено.
И не, не говоря за възгледи тип "фарма-мафията", "сила на духа", "киселинни и основни храни" и други подобни глупости. Spoon-Fed говори с модерни научни изследвания и показва как много виждания относно здравословното хранене от близкото минало са базирани на лошо приложена наука и/или здраво залегнали митове без научна основа.
Основното от това "дооооста" е каква ужасна, непоправима бъркотия и мъгла са изследванията относно връзката между храните и здравето.
Да, основите на здравословния живот и хранене са известни отдавна - яж умерено, предимно естествени храни и се движи повече. Но...
Всякакви хора се упражняват да се правят на учени по темата, да правят "изследвания" с по 5 мишки и да пляскат сензационни заглавия по медиите. А всякакви фирми и лобисти се упражняват да плащат и да оказват други видове натиск върху тия изследвания и техните резултати, защото от тях зависят милиардните им продажби на боклуци.
Ама наистина - хранителната "наука" направо гъмжи от лоша наука. Малки изследвания с по няколко участници, неправилно изчислени зависимости, p hacking, големи популационни изследвания, резултатите от които се представят като причинно-следствени, а не като корелация, недостоверни данни от "хранителни въпросници" относно какво е ял човек последната година и колко (кой помни това??) и още, и още, и още...
До степен дори приемани до скоро за "златен стандарт" общоприети виждания като вредата от солта, холестерола и наситените мазнини да се поддават все повече и повече на атаките на повече и по-научно издържани изследвания.
Прибавете към това факта, че общопрактикуващите лекари и дори специалистите по ендокринни заболявания (например)за няколкото си години медицинско образование и специализация имат едва няколко учебни часа относно здравословното хранене и...
Резултатите от цялата тая какафония са, че повечето от "общоприетото" в здравословното хранене и лечението на свързаните с храненето болести е или невярно или най-малкото силно изкривено.
И не, не говоря за възгледи тип "фарма-мафията", "сила на духа", "киселинни и основни храни" и други подобни глупости. Spoon-Fed говори с модерни научни изследвания и показва как много виждания относно здравословното хранене от близкото минало са базирани на лошо приложена наука и/или здраво залегнали митове без научна основа.
December 18, 2023
I'm ambivalent about books on the subject of food, given the difficulties I have with it. However I felt obliged to read Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong in order to decide whether it's appropriate to give as a present. I never gift books without reading them first. In this case I think it will be a suitable present, just not for Christmas. Tim Spector, who you may know from the ZOE covid symptom app, is a professor of genetic epidemiology. Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong is structured around a series of myths, each tackled in a chapter. The first is: 'Nutritional guidelines and diet plans apply to everyone'. This structure is punchy and the style highly readable. I think Spector strikes a good balance between discussing complexity and providing information accessibly. I particularly appreciated his repeated acknowledgements that the current food system is a nightmare both for human health and the environment, as well as the limitations of academic research into nutrition.
There is a great deal of emphasis throughout on the microbiome, a concept I've come across before in various recent self-help books (notably The Anatomy of Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming the Body's Fear Response and You Can Have A Better Period). I liked the emphasis on how useless it is to base nutritional guidelines on averages and historic assumptions; it's much more complex than that. Spector argues firmly against arbitrary exclusion diets, for moderation, and against ultra-processed foods. His demolition of calorie counting, bottled water, and gluten free diets are particular highlights. Although a lot of the material was broadly familiar to me, I found two chapters notably eye-opening. The first was on supplements. It convinced me that my taking vitamin D during autumn and winter as NHS Scotland advises is likely pointless and not worth bothering with. The chapter on pesticides made me concerned about buying non-organic oats, as I didn't realise they contained the highest levels of residues in independent government tests.
The final chapter demolishes the myth that GPs can provide competent nutritional advice. That certainly concurs with my unfortunate personal experiences. However, one notable omission from the book, perhaps for reasons of space, is critique of body mass index (BMI). This measure was invented and intended to be used at a population level, not to sort individuals into Acceptable and Unacceptable weight. Yet it is utterly ubiquitous now, presumably because it's simple to calculate. Spector's main point applies here as well: reality is far more complex and BMI is not a good proxy for health. Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong is also written with the assumption that everyone is trying to lose and/or not gain weight. I'm well aware that this is very common, but it's still depressing to find the book predicated upon it. Possibly this isn't noteworthy unless, like me, you've instead spent your life struggling to gain and retain weight. The potential for obsessive 'healthy' eating to become disordered is mentioned, though.
Overall I'd recommend Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong as it usefully rejects simplistic eating advice and critiques the food industry. It would read well with Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet (for more on the environmental impact of food) and You Can Have A Better Period (for those unlucky enough to menstruate).
There is a great deal of emphasis throughout on the microbiome, a concept I've come across before in various recent self-help books (notably The Anatomy of Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming the Body's Fear Response and You Can Have A Better Period). I liked the emphasis on how useless it is to base nutritional guidelines on averages and historic assumptions; it's much more complex than that. Spector argues firmly against arbitrary exclusion diets, for moderation, and against ultra-processed foods. His demolition of calorie counting, bottled water, and gluten free diets are particular highlights. Although a lot of the material was broadly familiar to me, I found two chapters notably eye-opening. The first was on supplements. It convinced me that my taking vitamin D during autumn and winter as NHS Scotland advises is likely pointless and not worth bothering with. The chapter on pesticides made me concerned about buying non-organic oats, as I didn't realise they contained the highest levels of residues in independent government tests.
The final chapter demolishes the myth that GPs can provide competent nutritional advice. That certainly concurs with my unfortunate personal experiences. However, one notable omission from the book, perhaps for reasons of space, is critique of body mass index (BMI). This measure was invented and intended to be used at a population level, not to sort individuals into Acceptable and Unacceptable weight. Yet it is utterly ubiquitous now, presumably because it's simple to calculate. Spector's main point applies here as well: reality is far more complex and BMI is not a good proxy for health. Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong is also written with the assumption that everyone is trying to lose and/or not gain weight. I'm well aware that this is very common, but it's still depressing to find the book predicated upon it. Possibly this isn't noteworthy unless, like me, you've instead spent your life struggling to gain and retain weight. The potential for obsessive 'healthy' eating to become disordered is mentioned, though.
Overall I'd recommend Spoon-Fed: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Food is Wrong as it usefully rejects simplistic eating advice and critiques the food industry. It would read well with Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet (for more on the environmental impact of food) and You Can Have A Better Period (for those unlucky enough to menstruate).
September 20, 2020
I found this book to be quite disappointing - the science based evidence is interesting but I don't feel like I've learned anything new...and if I'm honest, I actually got quite bored towards the end. That said, it would serve as a good introduction for someone new to the subject as it is concise and accessible.
August 23, 2021
One of those books that ought to be mandatory reading for everyone before they do their weekly shop. Prof. Tim Spector guides us through the research he has done into the evidence or lack thereof of food and it's benefits or negative consequences on our well-being.
This involves navigating all the bullshit that the food industry throw at us with their insidious and deceptive marketing strategies, such as the push to advance exercise as a solution to poor health, rather than poor diet.
it is eloquent and engaging written, free from any specialist jargon, and divided into digestible bite-sized chapters that focus on one issue at a time, i.e. fish, meat, veganism, fads, mental health, obeisity etc.
One of the central tenets that comes across from this, is not unsurprisingly his own research into the gut microbiome, where evidence seems to support that eating diversely and broadly to create a healthy gut can be one of the key markers of better health.
Another central tenet is to explode the myth of the average person when it comes to food. We have our individual sensitivities and preferences and we'd be well advised often to simply just listen to our bodies and how they respond to our diet. Experimenting with meal times, fasting, and substituting out foods will do more for us as an individual than trying to find some miracle silver bullet answer on the internet to weight loss or other health concerns, because we will be engaging in what is going in to our body and thinking about it.
In that respect it reminds me - to bring in a completely different subject here - of one of the useful tips acquired from trying to practice some mindfulness. Trying to take time to consciously appreciate a meal instead of wolfing it down. Whether its breakfast, lunch or dinner, being more acutely aware of how food tastes, what you like, and recognising what you're eating can perhaps help to focus the mind further next time you go for a shop.
All the chapters within them dissect prevailing myths and Spector examines how substantial the evidence is or -often- isn't in support of these received ideas that we've gradually subsumed through cultural osmosis and it is urgently fascinating.
For the lazy among you there is a pitstop appendix that summarises the conclusions from his research with a 12 point general tip on what's generally smart - for ourselves, and also the environment, but the book is very readable so do make your way through it all.
This involves navigating all the bullshit that the food industry throw at us with their insidious and deceptive marketing strategies, such as the push to advance exercise as a solution to poor health, rather than poor diet.
it is eloquent and engaging written, free from any specialist jargon, and divided into digestible bite-sized chapters that focus on one issue at a time, i.e. fish, meat, veganism, fads, mental health, obeisity etc.
One of the central tenets that comes across from this, is not unsurprisingly his own research into the gut microbiome, where evidence seems to support that eating diversely and broadly to create a healthy gut can be one of the key markers of better health.
Another central tenet is to explode the myth of the average person when it comes to food. We have our individual sensitivities and preferences and we'd be well advised often to simply just listen to our bodies and how they respond to our diet. Experimenting with meal times, fasting, and substituting out foods will do more for us as an individual than trying to find some miracle silver bullet answer on the internet to weight loss or other health concerns, because we will be engaging in what is going in to our body and thinking about it.
In that respect it reminds me - to bring in a completely different subject here - of one of the useful tips acquired from trying to practice some mindfulness. Trying to take time to consciously appreciate a meal instead of wolfing it down. Whether its breakfast, lunch or dinner, being more acutely aware of how food tastes, what you like, and recognising what you're eating can perhaps help to focus the mind further next time you go for a shop.
All the chapters within them dissect prevailing myths and Spector examines how substantial the evidence is or -often- isn't in support of these received ideas that we've gradually subsumed through cultural osmosis and it is urgently fascinating.
For the lazy among you there is a pitstop appendix that summarises the conclusions from his research with a 12 point general tip on what's generally smart - for ourselves, and also the environment, but the book is very readable so do make your way through it all.
September 15, 2020
This is a short easily-readable book by a leading food epidemiologist. It is organised around a number of myths related to diet, which in each case are exposed as largely nonsense by a brief layman's survey of the scientific literature. Not much of it was new to me, but then I am a self-confessed fitness- and health-freak, and I certainly appreciated having my impressions of the state of the science confirmed for me and summarised so concisely.
There are a number of recurring themes in the book, the most salient being that, because we all have different genes and, more importantly, differing biomes, we differ in our responses to diet - total calorie-intake, composition of our diet, even the timing of our meals - and also in our response to exercise. Hence, dietary advice based on what is best for the average individual is of only limited value for any of us (which however begs the question of why it is worth bothering with the scientific literature, which inevitably reaches conclusions about average individuals!).
Having spent 200 pages debunking almost all the established views as to diet, what is left to recommend? Apart from scepticism about the claims made by the food industry for "healthy" products, the author recommends experimenting to find what works best for us as individuals, which is not very practical for most people, though I am toying with the idea of following his suggestion of investing in a glucose monitor, something I would never otherwise have considered, as I am neither diabetic nor (as far as I know) pre-diabetic.
All in all, reading this book is a worthwhile use of 3 or 4 hours. My only reservation is that the power and usefulness of the book would have been greater if the author had restricted himself to considering the consequences of diet for health and weight, and not strayed on to the subject of the the impact of our diet decisions on the environment. As any economist could have told him, you need one instrument per target - so one book per message. Ecological concerns are another story.
There are a number of recurring themes in the book, the most salient being that, because we all have different genes and, more importantly, differing biomes, we differ in our responses to diet - total calorie-intake, composition of our diet, even the timing of our meals - and also in our response to exercise. Hence, dietary advice based on what is best for the average individual is of only limited value for any of us (which however begs the question of why it is worth bothering with the scientific literature, which inevitably reaches conclusions about average individuals!).
Having spent 200 pages debunking almost all the established views as to diet, what is left to recommend? Apart from scepticism about the claims made by the food industry for "healthy" products, the author recommends experimenting to find what works best for us as individuals, which is not very practical for most people, though I am toying with the idea of following his suggestion of investing in a glucose monitor, something I would never otherwise have considered, as I am neither diabetic nor (as far as I know) pre-diabetic.
All in all, reading this book is a worthwhile use of 3 or 4 hours. My only reservation is that the power and usefulness of the book would have been greater if the author had restricted himself to considering the consequences of diet for health and weight, and not strayed on to the subject of the the impact of our diet decisions on the environment. As any economist could have told him, you need one instrument per target - so one book per message. Ecological concerns are another story.
April 28, 2021
Доста интересна и провокираща книга. Пишейки това ревю, съм наотворила няколко сайта с абонаментни кутии за сезонни плодове и зеленчуци в Шотландия. XD
В книгата има доста термини, визирам наименования на различни химични съединения, както и доста обяснения, свързани с различни научни изследвания, които като цяло утежняват четенето на книгата. Другото, което идва тежко, по-скоро за душата, е осъзнаването, че храната е още една сфера, за която съвременният човек трябва да мисли и да има предвид. Понякога невежеството наистина е блаженство, защото тази книга е поредната, която ти отваря съзнанието за много неща и с това отговорността да направиш избор и целия стрес, е изцяло твой и няма как впоследствие да обвиниш някой друг. :)
Книгата е разделена на малки глави, като във всяка авторът споделя защо даден популярен здравословен съвет не е точно толкова здравословен и правилен, колкото сме си мислели, че е. За някои вече знаех, за други като например, че трябва да ядеш риба два пъти седмично - с удоволствие открих, че нежеланието ми да ям риба като цяло няма да ме убие, напротив обратното - даже помагам за подобряване на климатичната обстановка. :Р
Книгата няма за цел да ти даде някакви точни отговори, а по-скоро да те провокира да мислиш, да си задаваш въпроси и да търсиш допълнителна информация винаги, независимо кой какво ти казва. Същото и с информацията в тази книга - трябва да я подложиш на допълнително проучване, за да избереш за себе си кое е най-правилното решение.
Книгата имаше добавен бонус с доста добри и разширени коментари относно влиянието на хранителната индустрия върху климата на Земята и това за мен беше изключително полезно. Да, някои неща ги знаех и той ги представя все едно никой не знае, но явно в UK вярват много на каквото им се каже и сигурно от там идва този му подход в представянето на информацията.
Та, книгата е страхотна, ако се вълнувате от това как се храните и как да подобрите храненето си, защото знаете, че лесни решения към по-добро здраве - няма, то книгата е идеална за Вас. Отделно, нещата, които споменава за климатичните промени са страхотни, защото и аз що-годе вярвах, че локалното е по-добро за планетата. Е, не е точно така. Сезонното е по-добро за планетата, а и от опита ми - за бюджета Ви също. ^^
В книгата има доста термини, визирам наименования на различни химични съединения, както и доста обяснения, свързани с различни научни изследвания, които като цяло утежняват четенето на книгата. Другото, което идва тежко, по-скоро за душата, е осъзнаването, че храната е още една сфера, за която съвременният човек трябва да мисли и да има предвид. Понякога невежеството наистина е блаженство, защото тази книга е поредната, която ти отваря съзнанието за много неща и с това отговорността да направиш избор и целия стрес, е изцяло твой и няма как впоследствие да обвиниш някой друг. :)
Книгата е разделена на малки глави, като във всяка авторът споделя защо даден популярен здравословен съвет не е точно толкова здравословен и правилен, колкото сме си мислели, че е. За някои вече знаех, за други като например, че трябва да ядеш риба два пъти седмично - с удоволствие открих, че нежеланието ми да ям риба като цяло няма да ме убие, напротив обратното - даже помагам за подобряване на климатичната обстановка. :Р
Книгата няма за цел да ти даде някакви точни отговори, а по-скоро да те провокира да мислиш, да си задаваш въпроси и да търсиш допълнителна информация винаги, независимо кой какво ти казва. Същото и с информацията в тази книга - трябва да я подложиш на допълнително проучване, за да избереш за себе си кое е най-правилното решение.
Книгата имаше добавен бонус с доста добри и разширени коментари относно влиянието на хранителната индустрия върху климата на Земята и това за мен беше изключително полезно. Да, някои неща ги знаех и той ги представя все едно никой не знае, но явно в UK вярват много на каквото им се каже и сигурно от там идва този му подход в представянето на информацията.
Та, книгата е страхотна, ако се вълнувате от това как се храните и как да подобрите храненето си, защото знаете, че лесни решения към по-добро здраве - няма, то книгата е идеална за Вас. Отделно, нещата, които споменава за климатичните промени са страхотни, защото и аз що-годе вярвах, че локалното е по-добро за планетата. Е, не е точно така. Сезонното е по-добро за планетата, а и от опита ми - за бюджета Ви също. ^^
April 3, 2023
A very informative book about the misconseptions about nutrition and healthy living we have been fed for years.
March 5, 2021
This book presents lots of research in a fluid way to make a point about diet/nutrition. This very light touch on the evidence allows an easier read, and the author generally explains (sometimes repeatedly) what our “take-aways” (lol) should be.
The risk with this is that our actual understanding of the research is limited. We don’t know enough of any of the studies he cites to understand the context for ourselves or to draw our own conclusions. Also, I don’t have the time to review all his studies either. We are in his hands and trust his honesty and his own understanding of the research.
So I read the first few chapters and I was in full believer mode. A lot of what he discusses appears to be common sense. But then I read the chapter on pregnancy. It was just a little thing: he wrote that pregnant women get weighed in the UK just once, at their booking appointment at 12-14 weeks. Well, I’m a UK midwife, and I know that the NICE guidelines say the booking appointment is by 10 weeks. We generally aim to do it earlier so the results of the SCT and virology screens are back by 10 weeks at the latest.
He got this wrong. He got this thing wrong which is actually easy to look up. It doesn’t affect his point, but he was incorrect.
And another thing, I haven’t heard a midwife advise a pregnant woman to “eat for two” for twenty years- if then. I can’t say no midwife says it, but that is definitely not standard advice nor would it be on any of the written information provided. But he references this saying that his friend was advised this by a midwife. That one-off anecdote does not evidence make.
There absolutely is a confusion of food-related pregnancy care provided to pregnant women, but this is down to a lack of research, which many midwives find frustrating.
I began to wonder if the author was trying to make a case based on lack of real knowledge of this area (maternity services). My doubts of his honesty and understanding of this specific issue, about which I am familiar, made me begin to doubt his honesty and understanding of other issues dealt with in other chapters.
Having said that, I completely agree that diet/nutrition needs to be separated from commercial
lobbying influences (like Zoe, the author’s own commercial endeavour, but let’s not go there). This field is changing very quickly, and I would love the governmental health guidance to stay on top of it. I would love to feel confident giving evidence -based dietary advice to pregnant women.
In short, pretty glib, but speaks to a need for further work.
The risk with this is that our actual understanding of the research is limited. We don’t know enough of any of the studies he cites to understand the context for ourselves or to draw our own conclusions. Also, I don’t have the time to review all his studies either. We are in his hands and trust his honesty and his own understanding of the research.
So I read the first few chapters and I was in full believer mode. A lot of what he discusses appears to be common sense. But then I read the chapter on pregnancy. It was just a little thing: he wrote that pregnant women get weighed in the UK just once, at their booking appointment at 12-14 weeks. Well, I’m a UK midwife, and I know that the NICE guidelines say the booking appointment is by 10 weeks. We generally aim to do it earlier so the results of the SCT and virology screens are back by 10 weeks at the latest.
He got this wrong. He got this thing wrong which is actually easy to look up. It doesn’t affect his point, but he was incorrect.
And another thing, I haven’t heard a midwife advise a pregnant woman to “eat for two” for twenty years- if then. I can’t say no midwife says it, but that is definitely not standard advice nor would it be on any of the written information provided. But he references this saying that his friend was advised this by a midwife. That one-off anecdote does not evidence make.
There absolutely is a confusion of food-related pregnancy care provided to pregnant women, but this is down to a lack of research, which many midwives find frustrating.
I began to wonder if the author was trying to make a case based on lack of real knowledge of this area (maternity services). My doubts of his honesty and understanding of this specific issue, about which I am familiar, made me begin to doubt his honesty and understanding of other issues dealt with in other chapters.
Having said that, I completely agree that diet/nutrition needs to be separated from commercial
lobbying influences (like Zoe, the author’s own commercial endeavour, but let’s not go there). This field is changing very quickly, and I would love the governmental health guidance to stay on top of it. I would love to feel confident giving evidence -based dietary advice to pregnant women.
In short, pretty glib, but speaks to a need for further work.
September 4, 2022
I would not recommend this book. It is written by a professional under the guise of scientific support but the claims are sensationalist and have little evidence. I worry that people will read this and take the ‘facts’ as gospel. I stopped reading at the chapter which claims that food intolerances have been fabricated by the media and the only allergies which should be taken seriously are those which result in anaphylactic shock. This could cause serious harm and I’m sure other claims within this book could too.
September 21, 2023
How do we differentiate between fact and fiction when it comes to our health? In Spoon Fed, Dr Tim Spector gives the reader a good sense of why it’s not that easy to figure out what we should be eating. First of all, who can we trust for unbiased and factual information? The medical establishment? The government? A nutritionist? The information on a packet?
Having long been convinced that a nutritious diet is the basis of good health, it amazes me that the subject of nutrition is still given such short shrift at medical school. I’ve read other work that confirms this neglect, if not bias, and it’s frankly quite worrying. Of course the health system is designed to be back to front - prioritising treatment over prevention, reactive rather than proactive remedy - but you would think that state-funded health care (like we have in the UK) would find it practical to focus on the root causes of poor health. After reading Dr Tim Spector’s explanations of why the official recommendations for ‘a healthy diet’ are either outdated or compromised to some extent, one feels that the medical establishment is no more trustworthy on the subject than the health influencers on Instagram and TikTok. It all comes down to money, and scientists need their research to be funded even if they aren’t in the business of profit in the same way that, say, conglomerates like Unilever and Nestle are. It does make a reader feel that truth and purity are in short supply when it comes to the food industry, and a sceptical reader would not be wrong if questioning even Dr Spector’s purity. He, too, has something to sell - although I would prefer to believe that it is primarily an interest in improving the nation’s health.
Spector structures this book by asking questions like “Is breakfast really the most important meal of the day?” and then unpacking the mixture of commonly held beliefs, scientific research and commercial interests which have shaped both official guidelines and personal biases. I have lived long enough to see numerous ‘ideas’ about nutrition turned on their heads. When I was a child in the 1970s, orange juice was good, eggs were bad, fortified cereal was considered to be a nutritious breakfast, and margarine spreads were considered to be better for you than butter. We were all obsessed with calories, which we counted on a daily basis. All of that has been reversed now, partly because of what has been learned about the gut biome (or microbiome) which is Dr Spector’s specialist field of research.
Because I am somewhat obsessed with the subject of nutrition, much of the material in this book was not a huge surprise to me - although still interesting to read about in detail and from the point of view of a scientist and medical researcher. The contents may be an absolute revelation to readers who are not so devoted to reading up on this subject. I have long resisted what I think of the ‘faddy’ belief systems and it turns out that if you eat moderately of a wide variety of minimally processed whole foods you are probably going to be okay. All of our modern research basically confirms that traditional eating habits were fine all along. Butter, lard, pasta, cow’s milk, coffee: all of them fine in moderation.
One of the big takeaways from this book - for me, at least - will be Spector’s confirmation that vitamins and food supplements are either a waste of time and money at best, or even dangerous at worst. Fish oils, vitamin D supplements, protein powder (just to name a few): Spector explains why he used to believe in these nutritional aids and has now rejected them as ineffective. It turns out that our bodies are adapted to absorb vitamins from food. It’s really not a surprise, is it? (It really is it too bad that I’ve just succumbed to buying an expensive collagen supplement.) I also found Spector’s advice on tap water vs bottle to be enlightening. If you just want the bullet point, it turns out that we are better off nutritionally, financially and environmentally to drink tap water.
As a final note, this book will help you fine-tune your skills at interpreting the nutrition labels that are found on all packaged foods. I was reading this book in France, where they employ a sort of traffic light system in which green ‘A’ rated foods are the most nutritious and red ‘E’ rated foods are the least. I kept noticing absurdities in this system and laughing about them with my children. Clearly the system is fat-phobic, although it has no problem with gluten. (White flour is awarded an A.). My 10% fat Greek yogurt was only awarded a C, which happens to be the same rating as salty crisps. Dark chocolate - widely regarded as having some health benefits - was given the lowest score of E, while brightly coloured, sugary Haribo sweets were bizarrely considered a ‘healthier’ D. It really is the perfect example of so many of the topics that Spector discusses in this book.
Having long been convinced that a nutritious diet is the basis of good health, it amazes me that the subject of nutrition is still given such short shrift at medical school. I’ve read other work that confirms this neglect, if not bias, and it’s frankly quite worrying. Of course the health system is designed to be back to front - prioritising treatment over prevention, reactive rather than proactive remedy - but you would think that state-funded health care (like we have in the UK) would find it practical to focus on the root causes of poor health. After reading Dr Tim Spector’s explanations of why the official recommendations for ‘a healthy diet’ are either outdated or compromised to some extent, one feels that the medical establishment is no more trustworthy on the subject than the health influencers on Instagram and TikTok. It all comes down to money, and scientists need their research to be funded even if they aren’t in the business of profit in the same way that, say, conglomerates like Unilever and Nestle are. It does make a reader feel that truth and purity are in short supply when it comes to the food industry, and a sceptical reader would not be wrong if questioning even Dr Spector’s purity. He, too, has something to sell - although I would prefer to believe that it is primarily an interest in improving the nation’s health.
Spector structures this book by asking questions like “Is breakfast really the most important meal of the day?” and then unpacking the mixture of commonly held beliefs, scientific research and commercial interests which have shaped both official guidelines and personal biases. I have lived long enough to see numerous ‘ideas’ about nutrition turned on their heads. When I was a child in the 1970s, orange juice was good, eggs were bad, fortified cereal was considered to be a nutritious breakfast, and margarine spreads were considered to be better for you than butter. We were all obsessed with calories, which we counted on a daily basis. All of that has been reversed now, partly because of what has been learned about the gut biome (or microbiome) which is Dr Spector’s specialist field of research.
Because I am somewhat obsessed with the subject of nutrition, much of the material in this book was not a huge surprise to me - although still interesting to read about in detail and from the point of view of a scientist and medical researcher. The contents may be an absolute revelation to readers who are not so devoted to reading up on this subject. I have long resisted what I think of the ‘faddy’ belief systems and it turns out that if you eat moderately of a wide variety of minimally processed whole foods you are probably going to be okay. All of our modern research basically confirms that traditional eating habits were fine all along. Butter, lard, pasta, cow’s milk, coffee: all of them fine in moderation.
One of the big takeaways from this book - for me, at least - will be Spector’s confirmation that vitamins and food supplements are either a waste of time and money at best, or even dangerous at worst. Fish oils, vitamin D supplements, protein powder (just to name a few): Spector explains why he used to believe in these nutritional aids and has now rejected them as ineffective. It turns out that our bodies are adapted to absorb vitamins from food. It’s really not a surprise, is it? (It really is it too bad that I’ve just succumbed to buying an expensive collagen supplement.) I also found Spector’s advice on tap water vs bottle to be enlightening. If you just want the bullet point, it turns out that we are better off nutritionally, financially and environmentally to drink tap water.
As a final note, this book will help you fine-tune your skills at interpreting the nutrition labels that are found on all packaged foods. I was reading this book in France, where they employ a sort of traffic light system in which green ‘A’ rated foods are the most nutritious and red ‘E’ rated foods are the least. I kept noticing absurdities in this system and laughing about them with my children. Clearly the system is fat-phobic, although it has no problem with gluten. (White flour is awarded an A.). My 10% fat Greek yogurt was only awarded a C, which happens to be the same rating as salty crisps. Dark chocolate - widely regarded as having some health benefits - was given the lowest score of E, while brightly coloured, sugary Haribo sweets were bizarrely considered a ‘healthier’ D. It really is the perfect example of so many of the topics that Spector discusses in this book.
May 16, 2021
I really started to love this book. So much information which is important nowadays. But then I came to the chapter about pesticides. This is so poorly researched it actually hurts. And it males me question all the other information in the book. Can I still trust the author after this?
p 216
"A company named Monsanto developed it [Glyphosate] as a cleaner for pipes..." Wrong! Glyphosate was developed 1950 by a Swiss scientist for the company Cilag
same page
"it [was] originally developed as a cleaner for tanks and metal pipes...." Wrong again!
Monsanto developed glyphosate further as a herbicide from the start.
still same page
"... but when it dripped onto the soil, it was found to kill off many common weeds..." Excuse me? It just happens that a chemical developed in a lab accidentally drips onto soil? Tim Spector is a professor, a scientist. may he please explain to me how this happens? Did one of the lab worker took a test tube with him when he had lunch on a park bench? And glyphosate doesn't work this way. It has to be in contact with plant matter to be active. When it "drips onto soil" it breaks down into its components.
And then he follows up with all these publicity court cases in the US. And that glyphosate is classified as a potential (!!!) carcinogen. Did you know that beverages hotter than 65 Deg C are in the same classification as glyphosate? I am not promoting glyphosate. This is a topic which would need more discussion than is possible on a site like this here. But the scientific research which went (or didn't go) into this chapter is extremely poor.
I am not a scientist but I can find all this out easily I expect from a Professor to be more accurate in is research. This one chapter spoiled the book completely. As I said, it made me question which information I can still trust. This made the book change from a 5 star to a 2 star rating for me.
p 216
"A company named Monsanto developed it [Glyphosate] as a cleaner for pipes..." Wrong! Glyphosate was developed 1950 by a Swiss scientist for the company Cilag
same page
"it [was] originally developed as a cleaner for tanks and metal pipes...." Wrong again!
Monsanto developed glyphosate further as a herbicide from the start.
still same page
"... but when it dripped onto the soil, it was found to kill off many common weeds..." Excuse me? It just happens that a chemical developed in a lab accidentally drips onto soil? Tim Spector is a professor, a scientist. may he please explain to me how this happens? Did one of the lab worker took a test tube with him when he had lunch on a park bench? And glyphosate doesn't work this way. It has to be in contact with plant matter to be active. When it "drips onto soil" it breaks down into its components.
And then he follows up with all these publicity court cases in the US. And that glyphosate is classified as a potential (!!!) carcinogen. Did you know that beverages hotter than 65 Deg C are in the same classification as glyphosate? I am not promoting glyphosate. This is a topic which would need more discussion than is possible on a site like this here. But the scientific research which went (or didn't go) into this chapter is extremely poor.
I am not a scientist but I can find all this out easily I expect from a Professor to be more accurate in is research. This one chapter spoiled the book completely. As I said, it made me question which information I can still trust. This made the book change from a 5 star to a 2 star rating for me.
November 3, 2024
Not as educational as I hoped. Main focus of the book is to sow doudt on things we take for granted and motivate people to research themselves. It targets a lot of the myths around food and nutrition and explains how they spread and maintained, shading light on marketing and research funding processes, the power of the food lobbying and the complete lack of nutritional education of medical professionals.
The execution is unfortunately poor, lacking structure and proper editing. It also, stays in a grey area in a lot of the issues it raises, avoiding a clear answer even going as far as doing 180 degree arguments in the same chapter. Mainly focusing on criticism and a few personal recommendations from the author.
Probably the most annoying part: If you make a note every time the author mentions a variation of "but this myth was busted a long time ago" without anything else on how or when, you could write 2 more books. Which is a bit frustrating when you pick up a book exactly about nutrition myth busting.
Overall, it is successful on its main goal though which is to realise most common beliefs about food are outdated, result of layers of confusion and misinformation or a result of marketing and lobbying. It definitely motivates people to do re-evaluate what they think they know about their food.
The execution is unfortunately poor, lacking structure and proper editing. It also, stays in a grey area in a lot of the issues it raises, avoiding a clear answer even going as far as doing 180 degree arguments in the same chapter. Mainly focusing on criticism and a few personal recommendations from the author.
Probably the most annoying part: If you make a note every time the author mentions a variation of "but this myth was busted a long time ago" without anything else on how or when, you could write 2 more books. Which is a bit frustrating when you pick up a book exactly about nutrition myth busting.
Overall, it is successful on its main goal though which is to realise most common beliefs about food are outdated, result of layers of confusion and misinformation or a result of marketing and lobbying. It definitely motivates people to do re-evaluate what they think they know about their food.
September 5, 2021
The Jordan Peterson of Nutrition
June 6, 2023
Tim Spector v cca 200 stranách zhrnul svoj komplexný pohľad na stravovanie. Páčilo sa mi, že ako sľuboval, neponúka čitateľom žiadne univerzálne zázračné riešenia.
Stravovanie berie ako dôležitú súčasť našich životov a tak, ako je každý z nás iný výzorom a povahou, na každého platí v stravovaní čosi iné.
Ja som si z tejto knihy zopár rád odniesla a ak ste ochotní svoj čas venovať knihe o stravovaní, túto môžem len odporúčať.
Stravovanie berie ako dôležitú súčasť našich životov a tak, ako je každý z nás iný výzorom a povahou, na každého platí v stravovaní čosi iné.
Ja som si z tejto knihy zopár rád odniesla a ak ste ochotní svoj čas venovať knihe o stravovaní, túto môžem len odporúčať.
January 11, 2023
The advice in this book is dangerous and I would not reccommend it for people with anxiety, anorexia and orthorexia, food allergies and IBS. Let me explain why.
Also as someone with an eating disorder who is obsessed with healthy eating, I have a problem with his preaching about intermittent fasting. He says several times to experiment with skipping meals to see how you feel. If you have problems with restricting, please do not do this, as it can be a slippery slope.
I have IBS and one of the first lines of advice I was given by my dietician is to eat regular meals. In light of him saying everyone is different, if I were to go too long without eating, when I do eventually eat it exacerbates my symptoms.
Also I'm now scared to eat certain foods such as fish, and as a whole I think I'm more anxious and obsessed with what I'm eating than what I was in the first place.
I read his chapter on multivitamins, and how we don't need to take them, and how they can be more harm than good. This caused me to abruptly stop taking the multivitamins I have been taking every day for 8 years. I did not make this association at first but I have been suddenly unable to sleep. I have been fatigued, unable to concentrate, and had a raised temperature. I have also suddenly had an extremely sore throat. I am not someone who gets viruses that often and I couldn't work out why I felt so bad. I now realise it is actually dangerous to stop taking mutlivitamins cold turkey.
Someone on this app said he's like the Jordan Peterson of Nutrition. I agree wholeheartedly.
This author is a hypocrite and I don't beleive he is at all qualified to give me nutritional advice.
For example it seems he falls for the myths himself every time at some point in his life, which is probably supposed to be relatable, but what's to say another study won't come out in the future that contradicts what he is currently preaching? Like maybe butter will be found more unhealthy than margarine after all. He doesn't say anything about this. It felt very much like: "everything you know about food is wrong, and everything I know about food is right" and "don't listen to the NHS guidelines, listen to me"
He cherry picks studies which prove his point and ciritcises those that don't.
He criticises commercial lobbying whilst constantly promoting his Zoe app.
Some of his "facts" are just incorrect, like apparently it's unlikely anyone doesn't overeat after they exercise. That's funny, because I eat normally after exercise. Also, nobody tells pregnant people to eat for two. I skipped this entire chapter because how is he even qualified to talk about pregnancy?
This book is also written from a very privelidged perspective. Most people do not have the money or time to eat different breakfasts and lunches every day. If you open a packet of ham on Monday you need to consume it within a certain number of days or it gets wasted, so of course you're going to eat the same sandwich. If you need to go to a food bank, you eat what they have. If you have a family to feed and you're on a low income, you'll eat what you can afford and cook quickly. Everything he says reeks of white, male, middle class privelidge. He talks about systemic issues as if we as individuals can solve the obesity crisis by just eating the correct foods.
Also the whole thing was very much more like an essay than a novel. It needed so much editing and there was a lot of repetition.
Also as someone with an eating disorder who is obsessed with healthy eating, I have a problem with his preaching about intermittent fasting. He says several times to experiment with skipping meals to see how you feel. If you have problems with restricting, please do not do this, as it can be a slippery slope.
I have IBS and one of the first lines of advice I was given by my dietician is to eat regular meals. In light of him saying everyone is different, if I were to go too long without eating, when I do eventually eat it exacerbates my symptoms.
Also I'm now scared to eat certain foods such as fish, and as a whole I think I'm more anxious and obsessed with what I'm eating than what I was in the first place.
I read his chapter on multivitamins, and how we don't need to take them, and how they can be more harm than good. This caused me to abruptly stop taking the multivitamins I have been taking every day for 8 years. I did not make this association at first but I have been suddenly unable to sleep. I have been fatigued, unable to concentrate, and had a raised temperature. I have also suddenly had an extremely sore throat. I am not someone who gets viruses that often and I couldn't work out why I felt so bad. I now realise it is actually dangerous to stop taking mutlivitamins cold turkey.
Someone on this app said he's like the Jordan Peterson of Nutrition. I agree wholeheartedly.
This author is a hypocrite and I don't beleive he is at all qualified to give me nutritional advice.
For example it seems he falls for the myths himself every time at some point in his life, which is probably supposed to be relatable, but what's to say another study won't come out in the future that contradicts what he is currently preaching? Like maybe butter will be found more unhealthy than margarine after all. He doesn't say anything about this. It felt very much like: "everything you know about food is wrong, and everything I know about food is right" and "don't listen to the NHS guidelines, listen to me"
He cherry picks studies which prove his point and ciritcises those that don't.
He criticises commercial lobbying whilst constantly promoting his Zoe app.
Some of his "facts" are just incorrect, like apparently it's unlikely anyone doesn't overeat after they exercise. That's funny, because I eat normally after exercise. Also, nobody tells pregnant people to eat for two. I skipped this entire chapter because how is he even qualified to talk about pregnancy?
This book is also written from a very privelidged perspective. Most people do not have the money or time to eat different breakfasts and lunches every day. If you open a packet of ham on Monday you need to consume it within a certain number of days or it gets wasted, so of course you're going to eat the same sandwich. If you need to go to a food bank, you eat what they have. If you have a family to feed and you're on a low income, you'll eat what you can afford and cook quickly. Everything he says reeks of white, male, middle class privelidge. He talks about systemic issues as if we as individuals can solve the obesity crisis by just eating the correct foods.
Also the whole thing was very much more like an essay than a novel. It needed so much editing and there was a lot of repetition.
October 30, 2020
This book had a lot of potential, but left it mostly unfulfilled. On the one hand Spector challenges the moneyed reach of the food industry over research and government policy. On the other, he 'debunks' popular 'myths' about food - mostly telling us why every health fad, from plant milks to vitamin supplements, is actually harmful (or, in the case of chocolate, red wine, and bacon, 'not that bad').
In most cases Spector encourages consumers to spend more money on better quality food, in a tone not always understanding and sometimes just out of touch - the government should 'target binge drinkers', not 'those relaxing over a leisurely meal with a fine glass of wine'. Environmental concerns seem mostly an afterthought, although he does have a couple of good passages on overfishing. He misses opportunities to address links between diet and economics, diet and race. Spector's own work in the emerging field of the microbiome was a USP and some of that science could have been drawn out further, rather than endless references to various trendy studies and collaborations he is involved in.
Instead, the book suffered from covering a huge range of topics not very well, dipping into just enough science to lose your concentration, but not enough to properly explain things - before coming to a hastily drawn conclusion in each chapter where the author finally makes up his mind what he was trying to say all along. Gratingly, 'the food industry' is constantly referred to in the plural, as are countless individual companies - and just in general, the writing style does not flow.
I did learn some new things. Most food miles are racked up on short drives in-country, not cross-continent flights. Diet is 10 times more effective than exercise to help you lose weight. Most people get enough Vitamin D from a good portion of mushrooms or fish. But honestly, this book felt so rushed that I feel I would have learned just as much from a leaflet or bullet-point list.
In most cases Spector encourages consumers to spend more money on better quality food, in a tone not always understanding and sometimes just out of touch - the government should 'target binge drinkers', not 'those relaxing over a leisurely meal with a fine glass of wine'. Environmental concerns seem mostly an afterthought, although he does have a couple of good passages on overfishing. He misses opportunities to address links between diet and economics, diet and race. Spector's own work in the emerging field of the microbiome was a USP and some of that science could have been drawn out further, rather than endless references to various trendy studies and collaborations he is involved in.
Instead, the book suffered from covering a huge range of topics not very well, dipping into just enough science to lose your concentration, but not enough to properly explain things - before coming to a hastily drawn conclusion in each chapter where the author finally makes up his mind what he was trying to say all along. Gratingly, 'the food industry' is constantly referred to in the plural, as are countless individual companies - and just in general, the writing style does not flow.
I did learn some new things. Most food miles are racked up on short drives in-country, not cross-continent flights. Diet is 10 times more effective than exercise to help you lose weight. Most people get enough Vitamin D from a good portion of mushrooms or fish. But honestly, this book felt so rushed that I feel I would have learned just as much from a leaflet or bullet-point list.
October 25, 2020
Patchy.
Sometimes you read a book to learn more; sometimes to confirm that you are up to date and sometimes to reaffirm that it is legitimate to be confused about that specific field. This is that book.
It feels like it was rushed and too keen to strike a populist note.
Whist it is selectively referenced the biggest and broadest claims seem speculative
I was expecting better
Sometimes you read a book to learn more; sometimes to confirm that you are up to date and sometimes to reaffirm that it is legitimate to be confused about that specific field. This is that book.
It feels like it was rushed and too keen to strike a populist note.
Whist it is selectively referenced the biggest and broadest claims seem speculative
I was expecting better
September 29, 2020
A very well written book and great to dip into but I got bored after 12 chapters of the same format. Good précis of main advice at the very end tho.
April 23, 2022
Moral of the story:
whole pack of biccies is good for the soul
whole pack of biccies is good for the soul
February 27, 2023
One of the best books I have ever read on food, myth by myth examined. Tim Spector is a British epidemologist and medical doctor affiliated with King's College, London,
June 4, 2022
This book is Tim Spector's personal attempt to bring us all out of our own traditions and out-dated beliefs and into the clear light of dietary advice in the year 2020. His writing is simple, accessible and interesting. He chooses direct and widely held beliefs as the focus of each chapter and lays out various arguments and evidence to challenge these beliefs. I had a huge number of my own beliefs challenged and I loved how clear he was in some of his writing.
For instance: there is no evidence of benefit to health from supplements in Vitamin D, omega-3, cod liver oil, b12, folate or iron - except some very specific health conditions, and some vegans who are deficient in their existing diet. There are evidences for harms as well as the evidence of lack of benefit; Spector convincingly argued how ridiculous it is to take one chemical from hundreds or thousands found in fresh produce and hope for it to have the same benefit as the original fruit, vegetable, nut, cereal, seed or meat.
I also found out there is no link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol (who knew?); and that almost no one in the UK is protein-deficient. And on a related note: even performance athletes require only 50g more protein per day than Joe Bloggs - making most of the huge quantity of protein supplements consumed a total waste of time, money and effort.
There is refreshing freedom in some of the advice given: regular small quantities of alcohol are not bad for you and are probably slightly good for you. Coffee is good for you. It doesn't matter at all whether you have breakfast or not and it is certainly not an absolute 'most important meal of the day' for everyone. This all comes at a caveat of individual medicine or individual microbiomes: Spector places great emphasis via observational studies that only 1% of people display 'average' responses to all of carbohydrate, fat and protein in their diet or display 'typical' trajectories in blood glucose, insulin and blood fat levels after meals. We are truly all unique when it comes to our diets and the way we metabolise them.
My major criticisms are probably leveled at the compromise Spector has to draw between simplicity in the face of accessible writing and the technical or critical analysis he brings to bear on his sources and evidence. At times he criticises observational studies; at others he uses them as evidence for his own arguments. He chooses when and how to criticise the levels of evidence he uses. He attacks small studies with tiny numbers of participants and flames animal studies. Several chapters down the line he hesitatingly, cautiously, uses both to endorse his own line of thinking. This is frustrating for me because it muddies the water. I appreciate the honesty in including the nature of all studies mentioned, but if you are going to take this stance against some of them does it not seem odd to endorse them at other, seemingly interchangeable, moments in your writing?
Overall this is a fascinating introduction to the topic and makes clear and interesting recommendations to us all in our diets and how we approach our eating habits. Whilst there are reservations I have about the way Spector discusses his sources and his evidence (as opposed to someone like Ben Goldacre who almost goes as far as making it the primary focus of his writing), I understand the need to do it and his own honesty in disclosing conflict of interest and the transparency of his thought process and actions is reassuring.
Would recommend to everyone I think. Not sure who wouldn't find at least something here interesting - we all eat, most like a coffee or a glass of something, and climate change is coming for all of us.
For instance: there is no evidence of benefit to health from supplements in Vitamin D, omega-3, cod liver oil, b12, folate or iron - except some very specific health conditions, and some vegans who are deficient in their existing diet. There are evidences for harms as well as the evidence of lack of benefit; Spector convincingly argued how ridiculous it is to take one chemical from hundreds or thousands found in fresh produce and hope for it to have the same benefit as the original fruit, vegetable, nut, cereal, seed or meat.
I also found out there is no link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol (who knew?); and that almost no one in the UK is protein-deficient. And on a related note: even performance athletes require only 50g more protein per day than Joe Bloggs - making most of the huge quantity of protein supplements consumed a total waste of time, money and effort.
There is refreshing freedom in some of the advice given: regular small quantities of alcohol are not bad for you and are probably slightly good for you. Coffee is good for you. It doesn't matter at all whether you have breakfast or not and it is certainly not an absolute 'most important meal of the day' for everyone. This all comes at a caveat of individual medicine or individual microbiomes: Spector places great emphasis via observational studies that only 1% of people display 'average' responses to all of carbohydrate, fat and protein in their diet or display 'typical' trajectories in blood glucose, insulin and blood fat levels after meals. We are truly all unique when it comes to our diets and the way we metabolise them.
My major criticisms are probably leveled at the compromise Spector has to draw between simplicity in the face of accessible writing and the technical or critical analysis he brings to bear on his sources and evidence. At times he criticises observational studies; at others he uses them as evidence for his own arguments. He chooses when and how to criticise the levels of evidence he uses. He attacks small studies with tiny numbers of participants and flames animal studies. Several chapters down the line he hesitatingly, cautiously, uses both to endorse his own line of thinking. This is frustrating for me because it muddies the water. I appreciate the honesty in including the nature of all studies mentioned, but if you are going to take this stance against some of them does it not seem odd to endorse them at other, seemingly interchangeable, moments in your writing?
Overall this is a fascinating introduction to the topic and makes clear and interesting recommendations to us all in our diets and how we approach our eating habits. Whilst there are reservations I have about the way Spector discusses his sources and his evidence (as opposed to someone like Ben Goldacre who almost goes as far as making it the primary focus of his writing), I understand the need to do it and his own honesty in disclosing conflict of interest and the transparency of his thought process and actions is reassuring.
Would recommend to everyone I think. Not sure who wouldn't find at least something here interesting - we all eat, most like a coffee or a glass of something, and climate change is coming for all of us.
April 30, 2021
Not quite as revealing as I'd hoped.
Easy to digest, the bite-sized 'bloggy' chapters have come under fair criticism, though I found that condensing useful.
My main issue is with the tone of 'advocacy', and even the correct focus on the food companies, and their overreaching influence, can sometimes get in the way of the food science and nutritional essentials I suspect many will have been seeking.
Given one of the book's contentions is how little nutritional training medics get (terrain now occupied by influencers, celebrities and wellness gurus), it would have been nice to get more hard nutritional insight from someone with a medical background.
The high-octane, polemical approach that has become popular amongst a certain set of evidence-driven, 'rationalist' authors — a symptom perhaps of their vying for limited attention in a social media landscape already overwhelmed with the misinformation they're combating — isn't one I'm fond of, and doesn't often have the effect, I suspect, they're after. I'd have preferred a subtler, analytical, less 'campaigney' lense - even at the risk of it making for a drier read.
Much of the material will only be new to total newcomers to the subject, and many of the more outlandish claims debunked are stuff people shouldn't be doing anyway, like excessively high doses of (already largely unregulated) vitamins you can buy in the darker corners of the Internet; or some of the more ludicrous (though now quite mainstreamed) claims made on the miraculous properties of specific 'superfoods' and/or the exclusion of certain food groups - diets promoting this type of absolution rightly come in for a shellacking.
I would still have preferred more sober detail on the effects of more modest amounts of, say, omega 3 oils or vitamin d supplements, which, though covered, receive only a drive-by treatment (though now adamantly against, he still approves of their use in the bedbound, or with MS sufferers)
On the plus side, and given what the book set out to do, he does deconstruct some of the scare stories and outright myths behind headlines - specifically/persuasively by showing poor or limited experimental design, the practice of extrapolating results obtained with rats as subjects to humans, often with only tiny sample sizes, and the use of meta analyses to highlight how significant or otherwise a finding really is.
Notably, this works both when he's skewering the food industry, or with many of the supposedly progressive and "healthier" promoted approaches (v often unfortunately, it must be said, with governmental backing ).
The chapter on meat is one of the best as it contains less of the hard-edged advocacy, and focuses instead on specific claims on reducing the amount of red meat either for its supposed health or ecological benefits.
The common thread running throughout is 1) The insidious influence of the food industry, 2) diversity in food (again this is not new) - rather than fadishness of demonising/deifying food groups , and
3) the uniqueness of individuals (one size [recommendation] does NOT fit all), and the recent increased understanding of the role their own unique microbiome plays.
The tone can grate, but there's no question of the need to forcefully push this message of uniqueness of individuals, and diversity in nutrition, at a time when social media has turned the existing morass of misinformation into an avalanche.
Easy to digest, the bite-sized 'bloggy' chapters have come under fair criticism, though I found that condensing useful.
My main issue is with the tone of 'advocacy', and even the correct focus on the food companies, and their overreaching influence, can sometimes get in the way of the food science and nutritional essentials I suspect many will have been seeking.
Given one of the book's contentions is how little nutritional training medics get (terrain now occupied by influencers, celebrities and wellness gurus), it would have been nice to get more hard nutritional insight from someone with a medical background.
The high-octane, polemical approach that has become popular amongst a certain set of evidence-driven, 'rationalist' authors — a symptom perhaps of their vying for limited attention in a social media landscape already overwhelmed with the misinformation they're combating — isn't one I'm fond of, and doesn't often have the effect, I suspect, they're after. I'd have preferred a subtler, analytical, less 'campaigney' lense - even at the risk of it making for a drier read.
Much of the material will only be new to total newcomers to the subject, and many of the more outlandish claims debunked are stuff people shouldn't be doing anyway, like excessively high doses of (already largely unregulated) vitamins you can buy in the darker corners of the Internet; or some of the more ludicrous (though now quite mainstreamed) claims made on the miraculous properties of specific 'superfoods' and/or the exclusion of certain food groups - diets promoting this type of absolution rightly come in for a shellacking.
I would still have preferred more sober detail on the effects of more modest amounts of, say, omega 3 oils or vitamin d supplements, which, though covered, receive only a drive-by treatment (though now adamantly against, he still approves of their use in the bedbound, or with MS sufferers)
On the plus side, and given what the book set out to do, he does deconstruct some of the scare stories and outright myths behind headlines - specifically/persuasively by showing poor or limited experimental design, the practice of extrapolating results obtained with rats as subjects to humans, often with only tiny sample sizes, and the use of meta analyses to highlight how significant or otherwise a finding really is.
Notably, this works both when he's skewering the food industry, or with many of the supposedly progressive and "healthier" promoted approaches (v often unfortunately, it must be said, with governmental backing ).
The chapter on meat is one of the best as it contains less of the hard-edged advocacy, and focuses instead on specific claims on reducing the amount of red meat either for its supposed health or ecological benefits.
The common thread running throughout is 1) The insidious influence of the food industry, 2) diversity in food (again this is not new) - rather than fadishness of demonising/deifying food groups , and
3) the uniqueness of individuals (one size [recommendation] does NOT fit all), and the recent increased understanding of the role their own unique microbiome plays.
The tone can grate, but there's no question of the need to forcefully push this message of uniqueness of individuals, and diversity in nutrition, at a time when social media has turned the existing morass of misinformation into an avalanche.
October 5, 2021
Mixed feelings about this book.
It was good at challenging the status quo and encouraging critical thinking about society's understanding of food, particularly with regards to the influence of the food industry on research and governments. I also appreciated the holistic approach to diet, covering everything from calories, to meat consumption, to vitamins, and more.
I found that it could be pretty hypocritical, though, since Spector criticised the sole use of lab animal or very small sample human studies (which is good) but then would use the same type of studies to support his point. The first half was also quite discouraging, mostly focusing on everything that is wrong with our food knowledge, though this did get better in the second half with most useful and practical advice being offered. It was very US/UK based, which is understandable since we're probably the target audience.
Overall, this was a pretty decent overview on the more recent developments in food research and a good encouragement to reflect upon your food beliefs with a critical eye.
It was good at challenging the status quo and encouraging critical thinking about society's understanding of food, particularly with regards to the influence of the food industry on research and governments. I also appreciated the holistic approach to diet, covering everything from calories, to meat consumption, to vitamins, and more.
I found that it could be pretty hypocritical, though, since Spector criticised the sole use of lab animal or very small sample human studies (which is good) but then would use the same type of studies to support his point. The first half was also quite discouraging, mostly focusing on everything that is wrong with our food knowledge, though this did get better in the second half with most useful and practical advice being offered. It was very US/UK based, which is understandable since we're probably the target audience.
Overall, this was a pretty decent overview on the more recent developments in food research and a good encouragement to reflect upon your food beliefs with a critical eye.
April 15, 2023
I think that what is stated in this book should be taken with a grain of salt, which could be said of a lot of nutritional advice. However, the general advice of not overeating highly processed foods, getting a varied diet, and not relying on exercise alone for weight loss is all sound advice, and there's plenty of evidence to support this.
I especially appreciated how Tim Spector criticises the food industry's sinister tactics in marketing certain foods as healthy that are actually full of sugar and additives. Of course, it's ultimately up to the individual to manage their food choices, but there are so many underhand tactics that big food companies use to confuse the general public and it's nice to see someone calling out their bullshit.
I'm really interested to see what studies on the microbiome will reveal in the next ten years.
I especially appreciated how Tim Spector criticises the food industry's sinister tactics in marketing certain foods as healthy that are actually full of sugar and additives. Of course, it's ultimately up to the individual to manage their food choices, but there are so many underhand tactics that big food companies use to confuse the general public and it's nice to see someone calling out their bullshit.
I'm really interested to see what studies on the microbiome will reveal in the next ten years.
May 19, 2022
Two stars are given for his much needed attempt to shine a light on urgent problems surrounding BigAg, processed foods, environmental degratation, and greenwashing--and to sound the alarm about what is sold to us as "healthy" food by global corporations. However, the author fails to practice what he preaches, in that his rhethoric often has the same shortcomings and myopic confirmation biases that he decries in others. He is transparently furthering his own agenda and his financial interests, due to his connection with ZOE, a commercial enterprise. The book is also very short on actionable advice supported by reliebale scientific evidence.
October 5, 2022
A revealing look at the huge lack of proper unbiased and accurate research regarding food, nutrition, health guidelines and how the giant food producing corporations have vast political and financial control over much of the research that has been done.
This also gives some practical and useful ideas and insights into how you can do the best you can for your own nutritional health, without going into complicated label reading, how calorie counting isn't very useful and how to start protecting yourself from the aggressive marketing tactics.
Well worth a read and follows on from the book The Diet Myth, which I shall be reading next.
This also gives some practical and useful ideas and insights into how you can do the best you can for your own nutritional health, without going into complicated label reading, how calorie counting isn't very useful and how to start protecting yourself from the aggressive marketing tactics.
Well worth a read and follows on from the book The Diet Myth, which I shall be reading next.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 467 reviews