So, I have quite a bit to unpack in this one. I'll start with the good, and then move on to the critique.
I liked that this book challenges conventional wisdom. I agree with what Dooner states, because I've experience quite a bit of it myself. I was under an insidious amount of stress from two un-diagnosed mental health conditions. I didn't really eat. This went on for about seven years. I'm 5' tall, and I never weighed 100lbs until I hit the age of 20. According to BMI, I was 'healthy' in terms of weight. But I was suffering from severe anxiety, depression, and I was constantly sick. If anything went around the school, I caught it. Every. Single. Time. Now I'm about 50lbs heavier, and even though I'm 'obese' according to BMI, I've felt better than I have since I was in elementary school. I've gotten help for my conditions, and honestly I get sick maaaybe once a year, if that. But my doctors keep telling me that I'm 'packing on the pounds' and I should lose weight for my health. Dooner also tackled the fact that the diet industry is sort of shaping up like the cigarette industry in years prior. Cigarettes were considered good for your health, and the companies hid any evidence to the contrary, despite what it did to people, for the sake of profit. I feel like that's the diet industry today. Why are the BMI cut offs where they're at? Why 2000 calories in a day? Where did 10000 steps come from? Most of the are arbitrary numbers. I loved that Dooner cited her sources and I plan to follow up on those myself. I personally like to check an author's sources to see if I agree with their perspective on the article/information.
Now the critiques. These are 'bad things' so much as 'it could have been more'. I would have loved to see more citations from legit medical institutions. I mean, they are there, but there's some more 'pop sci' stuff too, like articles published in mainstream newspapers. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but news is about sensationalisation, not necessarily the most accurate, consensus driven and supported information. What grabs headlines more? 'Sugar has no noticeable effect on the human metabolism', or 'Sugar is more addicting than cocaine'? But again, Dooner was doing this research on her own and to be fair, most of the relevant information from institutions is stuck behind pay walls. I loved that Dooner mentioned the Minnesota starvation experiment, which shows that people who are 'over weight' and reach a 'normal weight' are actual in a mental and physical state of starvation. And we all know starvation isn't healthy. But I wish she would have also mentioned the Vermont prison weight experiment by Ethan Sims. We all assume that you gain weight because you eat too much and don't exercise enough, therefore diets and exercise fix it. We all know the latter doesn't help in the long run, but what if our whole premise is wrong? Sims ran this experiment with volunteer prisoners in a Vermont prison, where they were over-fed and kept sedentary in order to test the hypothesis. To sum up what he found, inmates had to eat between 6000-10000 calories a day to gain weight. Between twice and three times what we should eat. And even then, they could only gain 20% or so of their weight. It stopped after that, no matter how much they ate. And then when the experiment was over, the inmates didn't diet, they just went back to their normal meals, and they all returned to normal weight. Which goes to show those extra 500 calories ain't gonna do shit either way.
I'm hoping we see more books like this, with more recent science that is showing that weight is very much like hair color. We can try as much as we want to change it, but eventually it'll come back to what it originally was. Except in this case, too much famine can lead your body to becoming a great depression survivor who saves every single thing in case they need it later.