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
Published May 14, 2020
About the author
Tim Spector
35 books356 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 405 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 у��оволствие 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 у��оволствие 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
September 5, 2021
The Jordan Peterson of Nutrition
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.
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.
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.
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.
January 23, 2023
Everyone should read this book (especially the doctors and government officials who are shockingly ill-informed and uneducated on the rapidly developing topic and science). Food is such a fundamental part of our physical and mental well-being and this book seeks to debunk many of the food myths we’ve been told throughout our lives many of which are based on stale, outdated science or simply biased advice from the billion-dollar food industry. It hopes to remove some of the food scare/shaming and encourages us to consume nutritious wholefoods, save money on supplements and live a long and healthy life.
In 12 digestible chapters, Dr Tim Spector addresses where the myths originated, which studies it was based on (surprise, mostly small scale, observational or animal studies) and what updated food science and studies say now. He hopes to stop the food scare and remind us that nutrition isn’t a one-size-fits all and government food advice is often misinformed as you’re unlikely to be average. He also tackles how the idea breakfast is the most important meal of the day was created by multi-billion-dollar industries like cereal manufacturing and encourages us to experiment with meal timing and skipping a meal (which benefits our gut microbiome by making it more efficient and healthier). He explains how calorie counting is bogus as the way our body breaks down energy from food depends on how it’s cooked, combined with other foods and its metabolic effect on the body and is therefore wildly misleading on packages. He describes how decades ago it was proven that our body produces most of the cholesterol in our bodies and cholesterol from food sources (e.g. from eggs) do not raise our cholesterol levels, how vitamin and Omega3 supplements have also been proven not to work and can even be harmful as our bodies aren’t built to deal with mega one-off doses of vitamins and minerals that we only get in traces in foods. He clarifies that a lot of processed foods are healthy such as cheeses, frozen fruit and vegetables and quality bread and that it’s ultra-processed foods you should stay clear of which often are allowed to use labeling such as “high fibre” and “source of vitamins” despite containing negligible amounts of those but large amounts of added chemicals, preservatives, emulsifiers, enzymes and sugar. He also discusses diet myths such as exercise and explains veganism is not necessarily healthy and that the benefits come from eating a wider variety of plants and fiber. In terms of allergies, self-diagnosing home tests have been proven to give widely varying and often contradicting results and that whilst 1/10th of the UK population says they have a gluten-allergy the tested number indicates it’s actually only 1/100 and if you suspect you may have a gluten allergy you should go consult your doctor and through a proper 6 week program to get diagnosed as gluten is a protein that’s actually good for the rest of us.
In conclusion, Spector recommends eating diverse foods and mainly plants without added chemicals, to question the science and not believing quick-fix single solutions, to not be fooled by labels or marketing, to understand you are not average when it comes to food, experiment with meal timing and skipping meals, use real foods and not supplements, avoid ultra-processed foods with over 10 ingredients, eat foods to improve gut microbe diversity, reduce meat and fish consumption and check its sustainability and to educate yourself and the next generation in the importance of real foods.
I plan on re-reading select chapters including a very good chapter on pregnancy advice and how guidelines are over-restrictive and non-science based and that it is safe to drink some coffee, eat some sushi and have the odd sip of wine or beer.
Ps: Spector also did a podcast episode with Steven Bartlett from Diary of a CEO which is very informative and enjoyable (can be found on Spotify)
Spector’s 12 point plan:
1. Eat diverse foods and mainly plants without added chemicals
2. Question the science and not believing quick-fix single solutions
3. Don’t be fooled by labels or marketing
4. Understand you are not average when it comes to food
5. Don’t get into a food rut( diversify and experiment
6. Experiment with meal timing and skipping meals
7. Use real foods and not supplements
8. Avoid ultra-processed foods with over 10 ingredients
9. Eat foods to improve gut microbe diversity
10. Reduce regular blood glucose and blood fat spikes
11. Reduce meat and fish consumption and check its sustainability
12. Educate yourself and the next generation in the importance of real foods
Key takeaways:
- Scientific research is just catching up on fields if the microbiome proving that everyone is unique and there is no One True Diet that works for all
- By examining what multi-billion-dollar industries like cereal manufacturing may stand to loose if more people start skipping breakfast, it’s easy to see why breakfast myths are so widespread and persistent
- Yoghurt is one of the most microbially rich, healthy foods you can eat
- Some of the positive effects of missing breakfast in the morning may be due to simply extending time in the fasted state. After a gap of 4-6 hours without food, certain microbial species start replicating and feed off the carbohydrates in the mucus of the gut lining, effectively tidying up and making the gut barrier more efficient and healthier. Evidence is accumulating that time-restricted eating and increasing intervals above 12-14 hours can reduce insulin and help some people loose weight
- The idea of a universal recommended calorie intake is misleading and at worst harmful
- We know that the way food is cooked alters its structure and therefore how much energy it provides e.g steak tartare has less calories than a bloody burger which had less well charred one
- Foods interact, and their calorific content varies when mixed, so the rate if energy released from a cheese sandwich may be different from the value of the bread and cheese measured separately
- Displaying calories in menus at restaurants is pointless as studies have shown actual calorific content of a meal varies 200% from the number on the menu due to non-automated processes and portion size
- Our liver naturally produces most if the cholesterol in our bodies and cholesterol in food doesn’t alter its levels in the blood to any extent. Many foods we now think of as healthy contain large amounts of cholesterol, essential for the health of our cell walls and a number of key vitamins e.g. oily fish, eggs and yoghurt
- Vitamin D is fat-soluble, meaning like vitamins A, E and K, toxic levels can build up in the body as it is stores in fat tissue. Although vitamin D (which isn’t actually a vitamin as our body can make it naturally) toxicity is rare and causes high levels of calcium in the blood, it has serious effects on the heart, kidney and brain which can last for months
- You can get enough vitamin D from 15 mins of sunlight exposure, or by eating a fillet of oily fish such as salmon, or a handful of vitamin D-rich mushrooms
- Our bodies can’t deal with a large dumping of a chemical supplement in our intestines in the way they can process and absorb them from natural foods
- Virtually no vitamin or mineral supplement has been shown to have any benefit in proper randomized trials in normal people, and increasingly they are shown to risk causing harm
- E numbers on labeling; manufacturers have started giving additives more natural sounding names like carrot concentrate or rosemary concentrates which sound more appealing despite being equally refined and processed
- Plenty of everyday foods also have E numbers like E106c for paprika and E100 for tumeric
- There is very little regulation, and foods that boast about their health on the front of the package are often the unhealthiest
- Essentially, never trust a food label
- Calorie counting is a useless way to determine food quality. Your best bet is to judge a food on the quality and variety of ingredients rather than calorie count or grams of fat from the label. The less ingredients, the less manipulated the product is likely to be
- Not all processed food is bad; processing can be as simple as freezing, canning or drying ingredients. Several healthy examples include tinned fruit and vegetables, baked beans, frozen fruit and vegetables, cheese and milk. You should stay clear of ultraprocessed which include preservatives, emulsifiers, enzymes and artificial sweeteners despite a lack of data on their long-term effects, especially in combination
- Fake milks like soy or almond claim to be healthy but are usually ultra-processed with multiple ingredients
- We should resist the urge to be food snobs. Cheap does not mean unhealthy and whilst fresh, unprocessed whole foods are good tinned and frozen foods are also goos
- There is little evidence that red meat is significantly more harmful than white or even fish meat
- Fish oil; Results from a 2018 US review of 10 large high-quality studies found there was no effect whatsoever of fish oil supplements on risk of heart disease or stroke, and they should not be recommended. A UK review of 112,000 people in 9 trials showed taking long-chain omega-3 (fish oil, EPA or DHA) supplements does not benefit heart health or reduce risk of stroke or death from any cause
- Eat more chia seeds, walnuts, flaxseeds and algae which are plant sources with plenty of essential omega-3 fatty acids
- Eating higher amounts of fibre is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, colorectal and breast cancer, with the greatest benefits at intakes of 25-29 grams per day, double the recommended levels in the UK and US. Eating more plants also means you consume more antioxidants which improve gut health and protect against certain conditions and diseases
- Veganism per se is not necessarily healthy. Most of the benefit is probably just through eating a greater variety of plants of fibre which can still be achieved by people eating small amounts of meat and dairy
- Common table salt is mainly composed of two minerals, sodium (40%) and chloride (60%) which both have important functions in the body for muscles, nerves and fluid balance
- Coffee; (it’s not bad for you) An analysis of 36 studies found moderate amounts of coffee (3,5 cups per day) reduced the risk of heart disease, and even heavy coffee consumption was not associated with elevated risk of heart disease
- Caffeine works by blocking the normal actions of a brain relaxing chemical called adenosine which normally makes you sleepy. By blocking adenosine, caffeine increases alertness and concentration
- Coffee contains high levels of the antioxidant chemicals, polyphenols, which are likely to be beneficial due to their role in feeding our microbes. A mug of coffee also contains around 0.5g of fibre
- Coffee isn’t just about caffeine; it contains some fibre and similar to tea and dark chocolate, it’s packed with polyphenols which are known to have gut health benefits and should stay part of our daily diets
- Pregnancy; Western guidelines recommend limiting caffeine to 200mg per day which is equivalent to one cup of regular coffee, 2 instant coffees and double the amount of tea
- A 5 year follow-up study of 1600 women and their children found that small amounts of alcohol consumed occasionally (as opposed to regularly) during pregnancy probably isn’t harmful. If you’re sensible, the odd sip of wine or beer here and there isn’t likely to do your baby any harm
- Women only require an extra 200 calories but - importantly - only during the last 3 months of pregnancy
- Any form of restrictive diet will put you or your child at high risk of developing nutrient deficiencies or malnutrition
- Expectant mothers should focus on staying healthy, rather than worrying unduly about taboos around particular foods
- One journalist tested herself using several different store or online allergy tests and ended up with a long list of “dangerous” foods, but with no agreement at all between tests
- If you suspect a food intolerance, experiment with your diet by conducting an exclusion and re-challenge diet, but don’t be conned into using these bogus tests
- Coeliac disease is an allergy to gluten, an autoimmune disease where your own immune system attacks your tissues when you eat gluten, less than 1% of the population have a medical diagnosis of coeliac disease. 1 in 10 Britions say the follow a gluten-free diet
- Gluten means glue and is a mix of two two proteins gliadin and glutenin and gluten is formed when water is mixed with flour, and gives the dough its characteristic texture, elasticity and shape
- Suffers from coeliac disease need to eat gluten regularly for six weeks prior to medical tests for accurate results
- Coeliac disease is often confused with the much more common IBS (irritable bowel syndrome)
- A study found that the restriction of gluten led to suboptimal dietary intake of heart-healthy whole grains, which could increase the risk of heart disease
- The ingredient list on gluten-free foods is often much longer with many added chemicals that together could be having unknown effects on our body and microbes
- Unless you have a medically confirmed diagnosis of coeliac disease or a rare wheat allergy, avoiding gluten is likely “on average” to do you more harm than good
- The problem with the 10,000 steps a day guideline; the step count doesn’t necessarily correlate with increasing your heart rate, and is not affected by intense activities such as weight lifting or cycling, so this will miss short bursts of exercise or even just brisk walking, which are likely to be much better for your help
- Regular bursts of activity raising our heart rate reduces heart disease, high blood pressure and levels of blood fat
- Weight loss is one of the things exercise doesn’t help with and for most of us we have to eat less and choose our foods better to match our metabolism and gut microbes
- A study of 457 British civil servants over 10 years found those who had the healthiest diets had the least loss in size of key parts of the brain such as the hippocampus, key to emotions and long-term memory
- Natural probiotics in the form of fermented foods like cheese, yoghurt and kefir (kimchi and kombucha) are likely to be beneficial
- Most mental-illness develops in some form before the age of 14, so a good varied diet early in life is crucial for prevention. Mothers eating junk food in pregnancy appear to produce children with more behavioral problems, while children who eat poor diets are also at increased risk
- A diverse Mediterranean-style diet with a range of fermented foods to keep your microbes happy is looking like the best present you can offer your brain
- Bottled vs tap water; for most people chances of getting ill from tap water in developing countries (including Italy and Spain) is much less than your chances of dying from a lightning strike or shark bite
- It makes sense to buy bottled water in some African and Asian countries where water quality isn’t good, but ironically the countries that buy the most bottled water have some of the safest most tested and controlled waters on the planet
- Positives of tap water; Flouride is naturally occuring in tap water and has been proven to be effective in reducing tooth decay
- Thirst is an extremely well-balanced and effective signaling system that we should listen to - no evidence to suggest forcing ourselves to drink more water is beneficial
- Alcohol; The French drink a lot of alcohol (an average of 11.8 litres per person per year) and yet have the third highest life expectancy compared to other top-earning countries
- There’s no international consensus as to how much we can drink and what a safe level
- Drinking one to two units per day seemed to be the sweet spot for reducing heart attacks with 30% lower mortality
- In the TwinUK study there was a significant increase in gut diversity in daily red wine drinkers across the three cohorts while beer and spirits had no effects. White wine only had a small increase, probably because it lacks the high polyphenol content of the grape skin of red wine
- Drinking a moderate amount of red wine (1-2 glasses) is probably good for your gut microbes and could be a significant factor in explaining the health benefits
- I think heavy and binge drinking should be targeted, not those relaxing over a leisurely meal with a fine glass of wine
- Neither GPs nor hospital doctors are obliged to keep up to date with any changes in diet or nutrition advice as part of their continuing education- not even diabetes doctors
- Vitamin supplements like Vitamin D and Omega 3 get treated like foods and not drugs even though they are proven not to work
- Many GPs are still concerned about patients eating high-cholesterol foods such as eggs even though that myth was dispelled years ago
- Eating more plants is definitely important as this gives you more fibre, polyphenols and key nutrients
- A general rule - bright or dark colours are a good sign, including a wide range of berries, beans, artichokes, grapes, prunes, res cabbage, spinach, peppers, chili, beetroot and mushrooms
- Tannins and bitter tastes are another positive sign, in foods such as high quality coffee, green tea, extra virgin olive oil, dark chocolate and red wine
- The number and variety of different plants is essential - the more plant species we eat in a week (ideally 20-30) the healthier and more diverse our gut microbes become which helps to keep our bodies in good shape
- Keeping these plants as whole as possible, with less mechanical or chemicals is also sensible
- Probiotics or fermented foods are helpful to give our gut community a regular exposure ti live microbes - eating good-quality cheese, consuming natural full-fat yoghurt regularly is good for most people. More concentrated doses of multiple microbes are fermented milk like kefir, kombucha or sauerkraut/kimchi
- The greatest contribution to saving the planet me can make is to reduce our intake of meat, fish and dairy
- Mixing refined carbohydrates with fatty foods is good - e.g cheese on toast and fruit with yoghurt
- We should avoid highly or ultra-processed foods as much as possible - added chemicals, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers and preservatives can interfere with our gut microbes and are likely to be bad for our long-term health
- Is it surprising we were told that regular snacking would help us control weight when food companies made fortunes designing novel tasting snacks and also funded the studies to “prove it”?
- Food companies have massive marketing budgets, and the promotion of unhealthy foods need to have the same restrictions as smoking or alcohol to protect us
- We should also ban the use of false health messages on packages such as “with added vitamins” or “low in fat” unless companies can actually prove the food is healthier
In 12 digestible chapters, Dr Tim Spector addresses where the myths originated, which studies it was based on (surprise, mostly small scale, observational or animal studies) and what updated food science and studies say now. He hopes to stop the food scare and remind us that nutrition isn’t a one-size-fits all and government food advice is often misinformed as you’re unlikely to be average. He also tackles how the idea breakfast is the most important meal of the day was created by multi-billion-dollar industries like cereal manufacturing and encourages us to experiment with meal timing and skipping a meal (which benefits our gut microbiome by making it more efficient and healthier). He explains how calorie counting is bogus as the way our body breaks down energy from food depends on how it’s cooked, combined with other foods and its metabolic effect on the body and is therefore wildly misleading on packages. He describes how decades ago it was proven that our body produces most of the cholesterol in our bodies and cholesterol from food sources (e.g. from eggs) do not raise our cholesterol levels, how vitamin and Omega3 supplements have also been proven not to work and can even be harmful as our bodies aren’t built to deal with mega one-off doses of vitamins and minerals that we only get in traces in foods. He clarifies that a lot of processed foods are healthy such as cheeses, frozen fruit and vegetables and quality bread and that it’s ultra-processed foods you should stay clear of which often are allowed to use labeling such as “high fibre” and “source of vitamins” despite containing negligible amounts of those but large amounts of added chemicals, preservatives, emulsifiers, enzymes and sugar. He also discusses diet myths such as exercise and explains veganism is not necessarily healthy and that the benefits come from eating a wider variety of plants and fiber. In terms of allergies, self-diagnosing home tests have been proven to give widely varying and often contradicting results and that whilst 1/10th of the UK population says they have a gluten-allergy the tested number indicates it’s actually only 1/100 and if you suspect you may have a gluten allergy you should go consult your doctor and through a proper 6 week program to get diagnosed as gluten is a protein that’s actually good for the rest of us.
In conclusion, Spector recommends eating diverse foods and mainly plants without added chemicals, to question the science and not believing quick-fix single solutions, to not be fooled by labels or marketing, to understand you are not average when it comes to food, experiment with meal timing and skipping meals, use real foods and not supplements, avoid ultra-processed foods with over 10 ingredients, eat foods to improve gut microbe diversity, reduce meat and fish consumption and check its sustainability and to educate yourself and the next generation in the importance of real foods.
I plan on re-reading select chapters including a very good chapter on pregnancy advice and how guidelines are over-restrictive and non-science based and that it is safe to drink some coffee, eat some sushi and have the odd sip of wine or beer.
Ps: Spector also did a podcast episode with Steven Bartlett from Diary of a CEO which is very informative and enjoyable (can be found on Spotify)
Spector’s 12 point plan:
1. Eat diverse foods and mainly plants without added chemicals
2. Question the science and not believing quick-fix single solutions
3. Don’t be fooled by labels or marketing
4. Understand you are not average when it comes to food
5. Don’t get into a food rut( diversify and experiment
6. Experiment with meal timing and skipping meals
7. Use real foods and not supplements
8. Avoid ultra-processed foods with over 10 ingredients
9. Eat foods to improve gut microbe diversity
10. Reduce regular blood glucose and blood fat spikes
11. Reduce meat and fish consumption and check its sustainability
12. Educate yourself and the next generation in the importance of real foods
Key takeaways:
- Scientific research is just catching up on fields if the microbiome proving that everyone is unique and there is no One True Diet that works for all
- By examining what multi-billion-dollar industries like cereal manufacturing may stand to loose if more people start skipping breakfast, it’s easy to see why breakfast myths are so widespread and persistent
- Yoghurt is one of the most microbially rich, healthy foods you can eat
- Some of the positive effects of missing breakfast in the morning may be due to simply extending time in the fasted state. After a gap of 4-6 hours without food, certain microbial species start replicating and feed off the carbohydrates in the mucus of the gut lining, effectively tidying up and making the gut barrier more efficient and healthier. Evidence is accumulating that time-restricted eating and increasing intervals above 12-14 hours can reduce insulin and help some people loose weight
- The idea of a universal recommended calorie intake is misleading and at worst harmful
- We know that the way food is cooked alters its structure and therefore how much energy it provides e.g steak tartare has less calories than a bloody burger which had less well charred one
- Foods interact, and their calorific content varies when mixed, so the rate if energy released from a cheese sandwich may be different from the value of the bread and cheese measured separately
- Displaying calories in menus at restaurants is pointless as studies have shown actual calorific content of a meal varies 200% from the number on the menu due to non-automated processes and portion size
- Our liver naturally produces most if the cholesterol in our bodies and cholesterol in food doesn’t alter its levels in the blood to any extent. Many foods we now think of as healthy contain large amounts of cholesterol, essential for the health of our cell walls and a number of key vitamins e.g. oily fish, eggs and yoghurt
- Vitamin D is fat-soluble, meaning like vitamins A, E and K, toxic levels can build up in the body as it is stores in fat tissue. Although vitamin D (which isn’t actually a vitamin as our body can make it naturally) toxicity is rare and causes high levels of calcium in the blood, it has serious effects on the heart, kidney and brain which can last for months
- You can get enough vitamin D from 15 mins of sunlight exposure, or by eating a fillet of oily fish such as salmon, or a handful of vitamin D-rich mushrooms
- Our bodies can’t deal with a large dumping of a chemical supplement in our intestines in the way they can process and absorb them from natural foods
- Virtually no vitamin or mineral supplement has been shown to have any benefit in proper randomized trials in normal people, and increasingly they are shown to risk causing harm
- E numbers on labeling; manufacturers have started giving additives more natural sounding names like carrot concentrate or rosemary concentrates which sound more appealing despite being equally refined and processed
- Plenty of everyday foods also have E numbers like E106c for paprika and E100 for tumeric
- There is very little regulation, and foods that boast about their health on the front of the package are often the unhealthiest
- Essentially, never trust a food label
- Calorie counting is a useless way to determine food quality. Your best bet is to judge a food on the quality and variety of ingredients rather than calorie count or grams of fat from the label. The less ingredients, the less manipulated the product is likely to be
- Not all processed food is bad; processing can be as simple as freezing, canning or drying ingredients. Several healthy examples include tinned fruit and vegetables, baked beans, frozen fruit and vegetables, cheese and milk. You should stay clear of ultraprocessed which include preservatives, emulsifiers, enzymes and artificial sweeteners despite a lack of data on their long-term effects, especially in combination
- Fake milks like soy or almond claim to be healthy but are usually ultra-processed with multiple ingredients
- We should resist the urge to be food snobs. Cheap does not mean unhealthy and whilst fresh, unprocessed whole foods are good tinned and frozen foods are also goos
- There is little evidence that red meat is significantly more harmful than white or even fish meat
- Fish oil; Results from a 2018 US review of 10 large high-quality studies found there was no effect whatsoever of fish oil supplements on risk of heart disease or stroke, and they should not be recommended. A UK review of 112,000 people in 9 trials showed taking long-chain omega-3 (fish oil, EPA or DHA) supplements does not benefit heart health or reduce risk of stroke or death from any cause
- Eat more chia seeds, walnuts, flaxseeds and algae which are plant sources with plenty of essential omega-3 fatty acids
- Eating higher amounts of fibre is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, colorectal and breast cancer, with the greatest benefits at intakes of 25-29 grams per day, double the recommended levels in the UK and US. Eating more plants also means you consume more antioxidants which improve gut health and protect against certain conditions and diseases
- Veganism per se is not necessarily healthy. Most of the benefit is probably just through eating a greater variety of plants of fibre which can still be achieved by people eating small amounts of meat and dairy
- Common table salt is mainly composed of two minerals, sodium (40%) and chloride (60%) which both have important functions in the body for muscles, nerves and fluid balance
- Coffee; (it’s not bad for you) An analysis of 36 studies found moderate amounts of coffee (3,5 cups per day) reduced the risk of heart disease, and even heavy coffee consumption was not associated with elevated risk of heart disease
- Caffeine works by blocking the normal actions of a brain relaxing chemical called adenosine which normally makes you sleepy. By blocking adenosine, caffeine increases alertness and concentration
- Coffee contains high levels of the antioxidant chemicals, polyphenols, which are likely to be beneficial due to their role in feeding our microbes. A mug of coffee also contains around 0.5g of fibre
- Coffee isn’t just about caffeine; it contains some fibre and similar to tea and dark chocolate, it’s packed with polyphenols which are known to have gut health benefits and should stay part of our daily diets
- Pregnancy; Western guidelines recommend limiting caffeine to 200mg per day which is equivalent to one cup of regular coffee, 2 instant coffees and double the amount of tea
- A 5 year follow-up study of 1600 women and their children found that small amounts of alcohol consumed occasionally (as opposed to regularly) during pregnancy probably isn’t harmful. If you’re sensible, the odd sip of wine or beer here and there isn’t likely to do your baby any harm
- Women only require an extra 200 calories but - importantly - only during the last 3 months of pregnancy
- Any form of restrictive diet will put you or your child at high risk of developing nutrient deficiencies or malnutrition
- Expectant mothers should focus on staying healthy, rather than worrying unduly about taboos around particular foods
- One journalist tested herself using several different store or online allergy tests and ended up with a long list of “dangerous” foods, but with no agreement at all between tests
- If you suspect a food intolerance, experiment with your diet by conducting an exclusion and re-challenge diet, but don’t be conned into using these bogus tests
- Coeliac disease is an allergy to gluten, an autoimmune disease where your own immune system attacks your tissues when you eat gluten, less than 1% of the population have a medical diagnosis of coeliac disease. 1 in 10 Britions say the follow a gluten-free diet
- Gluten means glue and is a mix of two two proteins gliadin and glutenin and gluten is formed when water is mixed with flour, and gives the dough its characteristic texture, elasticity and shape
- Suffers from coeliac disease need to eat gluten regularly for six weeks prior to medical tests for accurate results
- Coeliac disease is often confused with the much more common IBS (irritable bowel syndrome)
- A study found that the restriction of gluten led to suboptimal dietary intake of heart-healthy whole grains, which could increase the risk of heart disease
- The ingredient list on gluten-free foods is often much longer with many added chemicals that together could be having unknown effects on our body and microbes
- Unless you have a medically confirmed diagnosis of coeliac disease or a rare wheat allergy, avoiding gluten is likely “on average” to do you more harm than good
- The problem with the 10,000 steps a day guideline; the step count doesn’t necessarily correlate with increasing your heart rate, and is not affected by intense activities such as weight lifting or cycling, so this will miss short bursts of exercise or even just brisk walking, which are likely to be much better for your help
- Regular bursts of activity raising our heart rate reduces heart disease, high blood pressure and levels of blood fat
- Weight loss is one of the things exercise doesn’t help with and for most of us we have to eat less and choose our foods better to match our metabolism and gut microbes
- A study of 457 British civil servants over 10 years found those who had the healthiest diets had the least loss in size of key parts of the brain such as the hippocampus, key to emotions and long-term memory
- Natural probiotics in the form of fermented foods like cheese, yoghurt and kefir (kimchi and kombucha) are likely to be beneficial
- Most mental-illness develops in some form before the age of 14, so a good varied diet early in life is crucial for prevention. Mothers eating junk food in pregnancy appear to produce children with more behavioral problems, while children who eat poor diets are also at increased risk
- A diverse Mediterranean-style diet with a range of fermented foods to keep your microbes happy is looking like the best present you can offer your brain
- Bottled vs tap water; for most people chances of getting ill from tap water in developing countries (including Italy and Spain) is much less than your chances of dying from a lightning strike or shark bite
- It makes sense to buy bottled water in some African and Asian countries where water quality isn’t good, but ironically the countries that buy the most bottled water have some of the safest most tested and controlled waters on the planet
- Positives of tap water; Flouride is naturally occuring in tap water and has been proven to be effective in reducing tooth decay
- Thirst is an extremely well-balanced and effective signaling system that we should listen to - no evidence to suggest forcing ourselves to drink more water is beneficial
- Alcohol; The French drink a lot of alcohol (an average of 11.8 litres per person per year) and yet have the third highest life expectancy compared to other top-earning countries
- There’s no international consensus as to how much we can drink and what a safe level
- Drinking one to two units per day seemed to be the sweet spot for reducing heart attacks with 30% lower mortality
- In the TwinUK study there was a significant increase in gut diversity in daily red wine drinkers across the three cohorts while beer and spirits had no effects. White wine only had a small increase, probably because it lacks the high polyphenol content of the grape skin of red wine
- Drinking a moderate amount of red wine (1-2 glasses) is probably good for your gut microbes and could be a significant factor in explaining the health benefits
- I think heavy and binge drinking should be targeted, not those relaxing over a leisurely meal with a fine glass of wine
- Neither GPs nor hospital doctors are obliged to keep up to date with any changes in diet or nutrition advice as part of their continuing education- not even diabetes doctors
- Vitamin supplements like Vitamin D and Omega 3 get treated like foods and not drugs even though they are proven not to work
- Many GPs are still concerned about patients eating high-cholesterol foods such as eggs even though that myth was dispelled years ago
- Eating more plants is definitely important as this gives you more fibre, polyphenols and key nutrients
- A general rule - bright or dark colours are a good sign, including a wide range of berries, beans, artichokes, grapes, prunes, res cabbage, spinach, peppers, chili, beetroot and mushrooms
- Tannins and bitter tastes are another positive sign, in foods such as high quality coffee, green tea, extra virgin olive oil, dark chocolate and red wine
- The number and variety of different plants is essential - the more plant species we eat in a week (ideally 20-30) the healthier and more diverse our gut microbes become which helps to keep our bodies in good shape
- Keeping these plants as whole as possible, with less mechanical or chemicals is also sensible
- Probiotics or fermented foods are helpful to give our gut community a regular exposure ti live microbes - eating good-quality cheese, consuming natural full-fat yoghurt regularly is good for most people. More concentrated doses of multiple microbes are fermented milk like kefir, kombucha or sauerkraut/kimchi
- The greatest contribution to saving the planet me can make is to reduce our intake of meat, fish and dairy
- Mixing refined carbohydrates with fatty foods is good - e.g cheese on toast and fruit with yoghurt
- We should avoid highly or ultra-processed foods as much as possible - added chemicals, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers and preservatives can interfere with our gut microbes and are likely to be bad for our long-term health
- Is it surprising we were told that regular snacking would help us control weight when food companies made fortunes designing novel tasting snacks and also funded the studies to “prove it”?
- Food companies have massive marketing budgets, and the promotion of unhealthy foods need to have the same restrictions as smoking or alcohol to protect us
- We should also ban the use of false health messages on packages such as “with added vitamins” or “low in fat” unless companies can actually prove the food is healthier
March 14, 2024
2.5/5
Agreed with the global message but the content wasn’t very groundbreaking to me.
Agreed with the global message but the content wasn’t very groundbreaking to me.
March 29, 2021
Concise, and easy to read. It was shocking to find out how little we really know about nutrition and how many things I thought I knew (e.g. eggs should be avoided because high in cholesterol, you should never skip a meal) are actually completely false.
April 20, 2021
This book gave me a serious case of 'stop the planet, I want to hop off'. Everything is ruined. By marketing, chemicals, plastic, globalisation, profits, selfishness and mostly: GREED.
I was HORRIFIED to learn how many people in developed countries refuse to drink perfectly fine tap water and instead go through multiple plastic bottles per day (I'm looking at you, USA). Also mortified to realise that so many of the 'food facts' I believed growing up are in fact twisted truths from studies entirely funded by major food companies with an agenda, like dairy, cereal or soft drink companies.
Info learned = 5 stars. Content delivery = 3 stars, it was like wading through a textbook with a lot of explanations of studies and results, took me a long time to read. I've settled on 4 stars.
I'm aiming to read 21 different genres in 2021. This one ticks the boxes: #nutrition #health #nonfiction
PS. If anyone is reading this and still sipping from plastic water bottles, please read this: 'People, mainly women, are prepared to pay more for it [bottled water] as they think it is safer, tastes better and is more nutritious. In 2016, water passed an amazing milestone with more bottled water sold than Pepsis, Cokes, Sprites and all other fizzy drinks combined. Should we be celebrating this healthy switch away from sugar or is this a marketing scandal with environmental repercussions? . . . Nonetheless, for most people, the chances of getting ill from tap water in developing countries is much less than your changes of dying from a lightning strike or a shark bite. . . . It still makes sense to do so in some African and Asian countries where water quality isn't as good, but ironically the countries that buy the most bottled water have some of the safest, most tested and controlled tap waters on the planet. . . . Fluoride has been proven to be effective in reducing tooth decay, and water fluoridation schemes have operated in many countries for over seventy years. . . . A quarter of UK five-year-olds had tooth decay in 2016–17 and rates continue to rise because of sugar, so it's a no-brainer that governments should be encouraging children and adults alike to drink more fluoridated tap water as it's a safe, easy and effective public health measure and antidote to sugary drinks. . . . Producing bottled water uses 2,000 times more energy than the equivalent volume of tap water. Worse still, it takes around 4 litres of water to purify a single litre of water and over 10 litres to make the plastic to carry it. Add to that the thousands of miles that the bottled water travels to get to cities like London or New York, where the demand is high. . . . The world produces nearly 20,000 bottles per second and they are piling up everywhere. . . . Switching to glass bottles would be an obvious solution as glass is easy to recycle, doesn't contaminate the water with chemicals and doesn't enter our food chain. But it is slightly more expensive, which is probably why the multinationals that increasingly control our water supply (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle and Danone) seem reluctant to switch back to glass. If bottled water is bad for the environment and isn't healthier than tap water, does it at least taste better? Probably not . . . Blind tastings have even shown that tap water scores higher than most mineral waters. . . . Switching to bottled water confers no health benefits; there are far more chemicals and potentially harmful substances in the plastic packaging of bottled water.' – Tim Spector, Spoon-Fed
I was HORRIFIED to learn how many people in developed countries refuse to drink perfectly fine tap water and instead go through multiple plastic bottles per day (I'm looking at you, USA). Also mortified to realise that so many of the 'food facts' I believed growing up are in fact twisted truths from studies entirely funded by major food companies with an agenda, like dairy, cereal or soft drink companies.
Info learned = 5 stars. Content delivery = 3 stars, it was like wading through a textbook with a lot of explanations of studies and results, took me a long time to read. I've settled on 4 stars.
I'm aiming to read 21 different genres in 2021. This one ticks the boxes: #nutrition #health #nonfiction
PS. If anyone is reading this and still sipping from plastic water bottles, please read this: 'People, mainly women, are prepared to pay more for it [bottled water] as they think it is safer, tastes better and is more nutritious. In 2016, water passed an amazing milestone with more bottled water sold than Pepsis, Cokes, Sprites and all other fizzy drinks combined. Should we be celebrating this healthy switch away from sugar or is this a marketing scandal with environmental repercussions? . . . Nonetheless, for most people, the chances of getting ill from tap water in developing countries is much less than your changes of dying from a lightning strike or a shark bite. . . . It still makes sense to do so in some African and Asian countries where water quality isn't as good, but ironically the countries that buy the most bottled water have some of the safest, most tested and controlled tap waters on the planet. . . . Fluoride has been proven to be effective in reducing tooth decay, and water fluoridation schemes have operated in many countries for over seventy years. . . . A quarter of UK five-year-olds had tooth decay in 2016–17 and rates continue to rise because of sugar, so it's a no-brainer that governments should be encouraging children and adults alike to drink more fluoridated tap water as it's a safe, easy and effective public health measure and antidote to sugary drinks. . . . Producing bottled water uses 2,000 times more energy than the equivalent volume of tap water. Worse still, it takes around 4 litres of water to purify a single litre of water and over 10 litres to make the plastic to carry it. Add to that the thousands of miles that the bottled water travels to get to cities like London or New York, where the demand is high. . . . The world produces nearly 20,000 bottles per second and they are piling up everywhere. . . . Switching to glass bottles would be an obvious solution as glass is easy to recycle, doesn't contaminate the water with chemicals and doesn't enter our food chain. But it is slightly more expensive, which is probably why the multinationals that increasingly control our water supply (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle and Danone) seem reluctant to switch back to glass. If bottled water is bad for the environment and isn't healthier than tap water, does it at least taste better? Probably not . . . Blind tastings have even shown that tap water scores higher than most mineral waters. . . . Switching to bottled water confers no health benefits; there are far more chemicals and potentially harmful substances in the plastic packaging of bottled water.' – Tim Spector, Spoon-Fed
Displaying 1 - 30 of 405 reviews