84 of 91 people found the following review helpful
Enjoy and use - but with caution,
This review is from: The Optimum Nutrition Bible: The Book You Have To Read If Your Care About Your Health: The Book You Have to Read If You Care About Your Health (Paperback)
My first impression was that this is a well-put together and practical guide to nutritional health. The recommendations and diet advice seem more realistic than in some other comparable books, which is good.
I also liked the wide scope and open-minded approach of Patrick Holford's book. Other authors in this field can verge on the fanatical in their advocacy of particular (often rather extreme) diets, like Joseph Mercola's No Grain Diet, to give one example.
However, like some other reviewers I was concerned about the accuracy of some of the information, and the scientific standards applied. I have not been so diligent as to check particular facts, but just from having looked through the book in some detail, I picked up on vague and sometimes contradictory statements (the percentage of water of the human body is variously stated to be 62 or 65% - while this is not crucial and may vary, it reflects a sloppiness and cavalier attitude to presenting information (implicitly as scientific fact) that worried me. Information about required water intake is similar vague and contradictory.
The health/nutrition advice on various medical conditons may be handy but I strongly suspect that the 'supplement recipes' are based purely on generally known facts with a dash of Mr Holford's intuition and common sense - unlikely to do harm but far from proven to work.
At a glance, and without having read the book in full, the worst section appears to be the one about blood types, which uncritically summarises and even recommends Peter D'Adamo's scientifically unproven claims about dietary types. It seems a very slap-dash and frankly irresponsible chapter that's been quickly knocked up for the new edition. Even without being an expert or doing any research, its suggestion that early humans were primarily carnivorous hunters appears to in contradiction to the widely-accepted theory that they were omnivorous hunter-gatherers. I think the chapter also contains a factual error on blood type compatibility (Type A does not react against type O donor blood as stated, as type O individuals can donate blood to persons of any other blood type as far as I know). Bad science indeed.
This may be a too useful and practical guide to healthy eating to miss - I am well informed on nutrition but learnt quite a few new things and clarified areas of previous knowledge. But double-check the facts elsewhere before you go supplement shopping, and definitely skip the chapter on blood types!
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Jan 2012 10:32:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jan 2012 10:40:38 GMT
Joel Fayad says:
From the first 50 pages I thought this book is highly inaccurate and some of the claims seem rather vague and far out. One major key point he forgets to mention that humans actually evolved bigger brains from eating cooked food by discovering fire, so eating raw food would cause us to produce more enzymes, developed bigger jaws, take up more energy away from our brain, thus taking us backwards in evolution towards becoming apes! He also contradicted himself in carbohydrates chart. He didn't specify what type of carbs to eat at what time nor the type of work load we endure in our everyday life to balance our carbohydrate intake accordingly. Also the type of carbohydrates he claimed that fruits are slow releasing carbohydrates??? In my opinion they're simple carbs and fast releasing, as opposed to complex carbs he forgets to mention. I found this book rather incomplete and ill advised. I think this book is a joke. Organic foods have just as much pesticides as non-organic...I found more knowledge and information from my own research than I did in the first 100 pages of his book. Epic Fail. Don't buy it!
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2012 18:32:47 GMT
Mr Viewer says:
Humans did not evolve from apes.
According to Richard Dawkins (A Darwin fanatic), Darwin merely said apes are our cousins and we both share a mutual ancestor.
In reply to an earlier post on 5 May 2013 11:06:43 BDT
Peter Upton says:
Hear, hear! Homo sapiens IS, in fact, one species of ape - the one with the biggest brain.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›